People who watch Channel 7 for the cricket along with me; do you find yourself just pulling your hair out at the commentators observations?
The moment it really hit me was when Marnus got out. Instead of praising the fact that he made 108 runs, which any average cricket pundit knows is more than you can ask for from any batsman; and yet, all I heard was slander from the commentators.
“Marnus was in; he played a selfish shot, and Australia really needed 160 from him, not just 100”
Are you kidding me? The amount of effort and focus it would take to even make that many runs when NOBODY else in the team even got close to that many runs, he scored almost 1/3 of our runs. How can you just slander him when he’s walking back to the pavilion? I get it was a disappointing dismissal, but seriously; we all saw the rain forecast. Australia had to be aggressive, and he scored at nearly a run a ball once he got past 50.
Meanwhile, nobody except Wade is being criticised. The guy that opened, got pushed down the batting order, still made runs, and has realistically probably been our second most reliable batsman to at least hit his average in a very lean batting lineup for us. They praise every aggressive shot; but as soon as he gets out on 45, he gets absolutely shat on. Considering our openers are complete dog shit, and he’s usually good for an 80 or so run partnership, why is he copping it? He’s doing his part. Paine makes 30-50 and gets media praise for playing his part. I’m sorry, but not every number 5 batsman can be Mike Hussey and average 50. Wade is just a scrape goat for our batting woes... which by the way, aren’t that bad! We made 370, and it’s because our tail always wags.
You never hear the praise for our tail either. Never any criticism that we basically start 2 wickets down every innings, and cross our fingers that Smith and Marnus make half our runs, and the tail wags. Without it, our 330-390 run innings would be more like 280.
I’ve only got one comment on what Warne and Symonds had to say. Marnus is already a more accomplished batsman if he drops off the face of earth tomorrow than both of them, and he’s only 26. If you couldn’t do what he’s doing, don’t comment on it.
The worst part is, when they actually try, every commentator is very technically competent. Especially Ponting. He only talks about what the game would feel like being the batsman on the pitch at the time; it’s great listening. I apologise for not remembering exactly who, but there’s an Indian commentator who comes on and delivers 10x better commentary on the game. He praises Australia when they perform and stays impartial at all times. Warnie has these moments where he stops shooting the shit and starts actually commentating and it’s like you’re getting insight to the mindset of the best leg spinner of all time, then it’s back to the same crap.
Is the depth of Australian commentary that shallow? I only hear about the great accomplishments of the 2000s Aussies until it’s just old men living in the past.
The icing on the cake; when I was at the Boxing Day test on Boxing Day, me and a mate who really knows his cricket were discussing the way the game was unfolding in the nosebleeds of the MCG. People started going silent between balls and overs to listen to what we had to say. Nothing insane, just talking about how India were setting an attacking field, and surely enough, what we talked about ended up happening.
It got to a point where we would be talking to 10 people at a time, Indian and Australian, all while at the G while sipping on beers talking through how India were bowling so well to the field they set. Everyone friendly, just talking cricket. There was no shitting on players, no shove it up your guts type of comments, just actual cricket talk. Watching from TV the next day was infuriating.
The media contribute to this ridiculous cycle of player hate as well, because every time I google a player all I see is what they could’ve done better. Smith hits a century? “He seemed too angry”.
It’s even worse with AFL, but I won’t even go there. Not the place for it.
You guys tell me, am I crazy or is it really this bad? Is the Australian media the worst in the world, or is it this bad everywhere?
Edit: regarding the Marnus dismissal, like I said, it was a disappointing way to get out. But 30 straight minutes of criticism and no praise for a century is so grating. Just call it what it is, a good knock when you’ve made the observation. Don’t go on and on about it. Also, Harsha was the person I was thinking of. My reception can be poor at times and I sometimes watch on Kayo, but it’s delayed so I prefer to watch live on 7.

Since it's the end of another decade for cricket , I thought why not reminisce about they great decade of cricket we had. I would focus on team India as it's the team of which I can claim to have followed the majority of the matches.
2011-12
The first year of the decade , Indian team was the No: 1 test side since 2009 , dominating at home and being extremely competitive abroad winning in NZ , Eng, drawing in SA and fighting well with Ponting's Australia down under all in a span of 3-4 years. To add cherry on top of that winning the World Cup meant this was the peak of Indian cricket and given where we were at the turn of the century it was one heck of an achievement to reach this position.
Note that Ishant Sharma was still pretty shit.
2012-13
As big as the highs were , who knew the lows were going to be just as deep. The no 1 test team team crashed and burned in incredible fashion and got white washed in two consecutive series in Eng and Aus , tons of legends had to retire and if that wasn't enough the nail to the coffin was hit by Sir Alistair Cook and his men when they beat India in their own fortress after 28 years when Panesar and Swann taught Indians how to bowl spin and I think at this point the stumps , bails , bat and ball basically anything to do with cricket should have been burnt and sent to England at that point. Funnily this series was my introduction to cricket as a 11 year old who despite being in india didn't know the name of a single cricketer other than Sachin Tendulkar.
Phew, Anyways the horror show ends here, or does it..? Though it doesn't feel like much now , but at that time when Pakistan was visiting for the first time after the terrorist attack and beat India in an odi series in India , it felt like a huge deal, I guess it was the series where we discovered Bhuvi, and during those days he used to swing like a banana albiet a bit slower, his wickets of the first balls on debut where fucking ridiculous. Regardless we did fine in ODi compared to our standards back then when we never used to win odi series in SENA , and Virat Kohli's thrashing in Hobart stands out even to this day , and to think that his 183 is still his highest after 43 fucking hundreds is a miracle.
Anyways the redemption in test cricket came when Australia visited India. We didn't know at the time , but in retrospect the worst Australian side I have ever seen play test cricket and poor bastards thought they could sneak a victory against this depleted indian side and they rightfully got demolished due their pathetic attitude towards homework and trust me Nathan Lyon back then was so bad that it felt like he was a club bowler , didn't know the dude would develop into the beast he is now. Luckily wade was shit then and now , the loud mouth's constant though.
That 4-0 victory over the fake team which tried to convince us that they were thev real Aussies is what I consider to be the beginning of our journey in becoming one of the best test teams in the world again, though is was not to happen any time soon , still this is where I can trace it all back , this is where Ashwin and Jadeja showed a glimpse of what they were going to do to the poor visiters for the rest of the decade , plus by this point Pujara and Rahane where abvious standouts in the middle order , along with Kohli, even Murli Vijay who a lot of people don't like , which goes over my head as he is unironically the best test opener for us this decade and yeah we were never able to find him a proper opening partner , and by the time he went completely shit , we had zero openers performing well for us in any conditions other than home.
Also who can forget Shikhar Dhawan's debut test century and Dhoni's double century.
Note that Ishant Sharma was still shit.
2013-2014
Now this was the year where we won our last ICC trophy of any kind, it's a shame they scrapped champions trophy after this year.Who knew Rohit Sharma's move to the opening spot would give us one of the finest batsmen in coloured clothing the world has ever seen. By that point even with his ridiculous talent™, it seemed like the final days of him getting anymore chances , if he had failed miserably there.
There was a great odi series against aus at home, Rohit scored the first of his three double hundreds, poor Ishant have away 30 runs off an over to end his loi career forever.
Faulkner was a good cricketer during this time who was supposed to achieve big things , he batted and bowled pretty well in this series.
Sachin played his last series , at the time it was quite a relief , and also very emotional , never seen a test match as jam packed as that in India , maybe the pink ball test against Bangladesh was close. Shami was the revelation of the series , and his reverse swing exploits in his debut match is still the best spell of reverse swing I have seen by any Indian this decade.
Now as the winner of champions trophy which basically means we where the champions among champions at a time when we ourself where the world champions , we went with all our super sayen power to tour South Africa.
This was my first away tour as a fan to any country let alone the land where Steyn breathes fire.
First odi of the match , SA comes wearing pink , I laugh and make a few cringey pink = girly jokes. My first introduction to Steyn on Live telly and bruh the talented Rohit Sharma didn't touch the ball for his first 30 deliveries. I dunno how one can miss so many consecutive edges, maybe the balls where too good to get an edge , in that match Virat scored a four of Steyn with a straight drive when Rohit was being treated as if he was a drunk no 11 , and to this day that reminds me of how Virat is a cut a above Rohit regardless of how many mental gymnastics the mentally challenged brohit fans do to claim otherwise. Anyways we lost 3-0 in that series as expected but during those days even ODIs felt like impossible to win in SA for us. Also de dock announced himself with three centuries in all the matches that series.
That test series was Kohli's first in SA and he had a lot to prove back in those days , and he did and iirc so did Pujara. The second test is what everyone would remember where SA almost chased down the world record total, god the bowling was pathetic then.
During this time an awkward young kid with an even more awkward bowling action bowled for MI on debut , and it didn't seems like much at the time , just that he was awkward.
Note that Ishant Sharma was still pretty shit.
2014- 15
Then we go to New Zealand and baz scores a triple century and makes us fuck off.
The t20 worldcup was pretty good for us we went into the finals , Sri Lanka bowled really good at the death, basically every ball was a wide yorker and this was the beginning of a long stretch of losing on the finals or semi-finals for us in the decade.
Now comes the groups first test series in England , I meant just in essence , dhoni and Ishant had played their before but still this was the India in transition, the first test was a draw all I remember is Murli Vijay had a great knock . The next match at lords is one of the most important matches for us this decade , before this I guess we hadn't won a test match in SENA countries since I guess 2008 when we won in NZ 1-0 , I mean come on , I guess we all should be glad things aren't that bad now and we do win atleast a test in most places we play and other teams have to, lots of the times , work there asses of to win against us in their own backyard. Now Rahane scored probably the Indian test century of the decade according to me , and also his favorite century as claimed by the man himself after his exploits in the Boxing Day test recently.
Now hear me out , Ishant got his career best figures in the second innings here , but this is still a time when he was pretty mediocre, and even though I don't want to take any credit away from him , a lot has to do with a collective brain fade from England while playing the short balls from Ishant. Anyways we won and it was a great day, sweet victory in SENA after a long time after two matches we led the series 1-0 , and tbh if we were Sri Lanka or Pakistan we would be going on home after avenging our home test series loss, but no the big boys have to play 5 test matches FFS, nothing much to say here Bhuvneshwar Kumar was our best batsman and bowler that series , we got fucked really fucking bad by Anderson and yeah 3-1.
But even more than that the series would be known as Virat Kohli's lowest point in his test career [ yet (๑•﹏•)]. The world found out that he is no Tendulkar and does have a severe flaw in his technique playing the out swinger. And to be honest we all know that to some extent he still has that flaw , unlike Williamson and Smith who basically have no major flaws in their technique. Yet I would say he is the second best test batsman of the generation after Smith.
Atleast back in the day England used to be a piss poor odi side who played like it was the 70s , and we won that series , but it was not sweet enough to compensate for the thrashing in tests.
Now next we move on to the Border Gavaskar Trophy in Aus, Dhoni called it quits as a test cricketer and Virat takes the helm ,it was basically a run fest, Virat and Smith both scored tons of runs , and we almost won a test in Adelaide , but it could have been worse given how Mitchell Johnson blew England away and South Africa too, but the pitches maybe weren't that conducive or he declined a bit or both , anyways it was basically chat shit get banged for him that series anyways. We lost 2-0 , but this was a series where we could say we played respectable cricket.
Note that Ishant Sharma was still quite shit.
2015 - 2016
We weren't in great form as an odi side around the time of the world cup as we lost a series pretty badly to Australia , who where eventually the champions , Starc was breathing fire back then.
But we won every match in the group stages , and finally lost to Australia in the semi-finals. Fuck Starc , he's too good. No problem we'll win in 2019.
Now in the test world we have had lots of back to back tough series , all the players where new , but by now lots of them where quite experienced and settled in the squad.
Now many people like to say that Indian wins in Sri Lanka shouldn't be counted as away wins and it's still the sub continent etc etc , but before 2015, the last and only time india beat Sri Lanka in Lanka was in the early nineties. Now during this time Sri Lanka was still a great team especially at home they still had Sangakara , Herath both at their best and on top of that they had Karunaratne , Thirimanne and Chandimal. Also remember the time when Angelo Mathews was one of the best test batsman in the world? Yeah he was the captain. The first test match went to them after a second innings collapse from India , that would be the last test Sri Lanka wins against India and they played 8 more tests after this. Anyways India came back triumphantly to win the next two tests to get only their second ever test series victory in the supposedly easy land Sri Lanka and this was to be the beginning of a very dominant period of test cricket for India after which, eventually they'd become the country with the second most number of months as world no 1 in test cricket after Australia since 2003 when the icc ranking begun.
This was the first series where Ishant Sharma started to show some improvement.
Next , South Africa visits India for a test series. Now South Africa has drawn their last two test series in India and I would even go on as far as to say they were even better than the legendary Australia when it came to test cricket in India. Virat Kohli at this time wanted to get really spin friendly wickets as according to him many teams around the world create green wickets and all to get home advantage , there was lots of complaining from faf , but any ways they got thumped 3-0 for the first time ever in India and that was the beginning of a very dominant home stretch.
One highlight was the blockathon from ABD -Amla and also twin centuries from Rahane in that test which where the only centuries in the whole series iirc.
Now India goes to west Indies and get a convincing test series victory, now WI us still a good test team at home , they have beaten good sides like England and Pakistan but they always fail to show up against India, so that's that.
Note than Ishant was still a bit shit.
2016-2017
Next New Zealand visits India , and get ravaged 3-0 with huge margins , India used to always be a dominant side at home , but this was starting to get scary, Ashwin and Jadeja were unplayable literally every match.
Next comes England , the winners of the last series between the two in India. Oh the revenge was cold and sweet , the way we destroyed them was something else , huge scores , losing after scoring almost 500 runs multiple times , triple hundreds , who can forget the hundred from jayant yadav. This was a massacre, and it was due since a long time.
Now as you know Kohli and Shastri were quite cocky by this time, so were the fans and I mean can you blame us? Australia came after a lot of preparation, fuckers where praising Ashwin as the Bradman of bowling to jinx him. The Pune test was a shock, this was before Steve Smith's redemption in the Ashes and as an Indian fan the only other time I really saw him scoring lots of runs it wasn't really tough conditions and on top of that it was at home. This Pune test changed that, I think I have seen the best test batsman of the generation , and maybe even for the next 30 years. Kohli went fishing for that series , and we were again in the backfoot after the first innings of the second test. But then as Ashwin had warned Aussies didn't get a considerable lead , and Ashwin had them for soup . The last test was again won by India to finish a well fought test series.
We all know what happened in the t20 world cup, we reached the semi , and WI thumped us. Who can forget the Ashwin no ball , atleast I mean maybe it's just an anomaly surely an Indian bowler can't bowl a no ball in another major icc knockout match right? Right?
Note that Ishant is very very slightly shit
2017-2018
Okay I have a confession to make. I may have lied about something , ok I admit there was a champions trophy in 2017. And yeah we got thumped so bad , that idk what to say, fairytale stuff for pakistan though , tbh I don't remember them beating us in any other match since 2013 , but probs to them they won the second most important match between us this decade , after the icc wc semi final.
Atleast after the champions trophy we decided to bring in Kuldeep and Chahal and with the rise of Bumrah and even Shami we started to actually become a good bowling side in one day internationals.
We started to not only win at home in loi but in SA , NZ , Aus and that too convincingly, the only loss I remember during this time was probably against the future worldcup champions England at their home , but then again they are probably the greatest odi side probably only second to the legendary Aussie side.
Now we tour Sri Lanka again and by this time Sri Lanka has detoriated quite a bit , they aren't their previous self and don't have Sanga , Herath and Mathew is not his former self. They get thumped 3-0 at home and it's probably our first overseas whitewash.
Next they tour us and we are arrogant enough to act as if this is practice for upcoming overseas tour and make green pitches and all. I remember the Delhi test with pollution and yeah two matches where drawn rather surprisingly still India won 1-0.
By this time you can see that Ishant is slowly improving and his performances are becoming much better.
Now India visits SA and this time India is an experienced side , they are still not a world class bowling line up , but that was going to change , and that happened here when Bumrah was given his test cap. There were lots of questions about this , people where saying that he cannot get swing or seam and his action was not meant for test cricket etc etc, anyways it didn't even take much time tbh , he was an instant success just like he was in loi and took decent amount of wickets every innings , India lost the first two test matches , but all those matches were close , popular consensus is that ABD was the diffrence , India won the last test match which was on a green mamba of a picth, and Bumrah takes his first fifier in the last test match and rest is history. It's too early , but still he is easily the best fast bowler India has ever had, greatest not yet solely due to the fact that some others have more years of service.
Note that Ishant is finally bowling as one of the best bowlers.
2018-2019
Now we go back to England , all eyes were on Kohli , I think he played one of his best innings that match playing with the tail to keep India in the game. Yeah India was in the game a lot of the times infact , yes the scoreline was 4-1 , but this series was well fought , still England were the better team , but India got one famous victory in Nottingham and yeah that's that.
Pretty disappointing , a similar result was predicted down under. Who knew Warner and Steve Smith had diffrent plans , they did their noble deed and we're kicked out of the sport for an year , and yeah this did play a part in giving India a huge advantage.
So yeah we visited down under and as we all know we thumped Australia , should have been 3-1 if not for the rain in Sydney , it was a historic series win , the bowling we faced was still the best in the world. Pujara played the series of his life , and Indian bowling was as good if not better.
In ODIs we are doing really well but still haven't found a good middle order. And yeah we never found that before the world cup.
Note that Ishant Sharma is one of the best bowlers in the world.
2019-2020
Back to back odi series against Australia , both win one of the series at the opposition's home , but we beat them in the WC. We again reach the semi finals and again just like last time lose in the semi's , at this point if we didn't have a decently stacked trophy cabinet we would be the chokers of the decade.
We visit west indies and I think I see Bumrah bowling the best he ever has , he was literally unplayable before getting a stress fracture , which gave real scares to all of us.
Next South Africa visits India again and if last time was a thumping , this time was a complete annihilation , even the pitches where pretty balanced and our pacer out bowled their pacers , tbh it wasn't even a contest , they looked like club cricketers , except faf, he was the lone warrior. 3-0 , but we all know SA is going through a crisis, so nothing surprising.
Bangladesh visit India for 2 tests and again if SA had one batsman doing well , Bangladesh had zero. The day-night test was the most fun test match in terms of crowd participation since Tendulkar's farewell series. But in terms of cricket it was completely one sided.
Note thatIshant is one of the best bowlers in the world
2020
By this time we have been the world no 1 test side for 4 consecutive years , and rightly so according to me , we haven't been world dominators or something , but we where still the best of the lot.
But the biggest disappointment atleast for me in the decade after the England series in 2012 , came when we toured NZ , yeah Ishant Sharma wasn't available , but the way we got rolled over in both the tests after making so much progress in all these years was very disappointing , but we can consider it of as only 2 off tests but still it was very disappointing.
On top of that being white washed in odi series was also pretty humiliating and one concern has to be the ineffectiveness of the odi bowling side recently. But one thing is the middle order is doing slightly better plus the world cup is in India , so bowling won't be that much of a problem I hope. It's still a long way.
We white wash them 5-0 is a T20 series with two of them in super overs and that was very satisfying.
Then Covid hits and the world goes into a frenzy.
We visit Australia again in 2 years , and start by very poorly losing the first two ODIs , the bowling looks problematic.
We redeem ourself in the t20s though and since the next two world cups are t20s I guess that's good that we are consistently winning.
And at the fag end of the decade we play the first test in Adelaide , we start well considering Ishant isn't available again , we get them quite cheaply getting a handy lead , at the end of day two we where thinking of scoring another 200 runs atleast to get a good enough lead to win the test match. In probably the worst session of cricket India has ever played in their 88 years of playing this game , we get all out for 36 , and rightly everyone starts prediction a 4-0 whitewash , I mean who wouldn't.
I guess one of the best test match victories for the country not just in this decade but in our entire history came as the last test match of the decade.. Coming back from an all time low , not having Kohli , Ishant , Bhuvi , Shami and Umesh getting injured mid game , with two debutants India makes a great comeback coming back from a historic low.
That's that, it has been a great decade , certainly India's best decade in terms of win rates and results and all and even icc trophies , not getting atleast one ICC trophy in the later end of the decade dampens the fun a bit , let's hope that changes in the future. The biggest thing to happen is certainly getting good fast bowlers in the second half of the decade.
Exciting times ahead , we probably have more talent coming through every year in domestic than ever before, especially in fast bowling , currently very excited for Kartik Tyagi , and also hope nagarkoti and Mavi don't get lost , Natrajan , Siraj , Saini are all good. As usual lots and lots of batting talent coming through, also a couple of exciting wicket keepers in Rishab and Ishan kishan and even Sanju , if Rahul can keep well , that's the best case scenario for the loi teams.
All through the decade IPL has evolved into a mature league and is only going strength to strength .
One thing which has detoriated a bit I feel is our fielding which was top notch for a long time from champions trophy 2013 untill recently. Lots of catches being dropped and there's no excuses for that.
I think in the first decade of the century we went from a average team to a good team , this decade after a blip early on , we have transitioned easily into a top 3 team irrespective of the format. Without a doubt the most successful decade for Indian cricket in terms of results , the 2000s died for this.
At the end I want to have a word for Ishant Sharma , for the majority of his career he was the most mediocre cricketer I have ever seen , he was statistically the worst fast bowler to play the number of tests he did with a bowling avg of about 38-40 , I don't think anyone except Ishant himself would have ever thought that he would be averaging around 17-18 accross the world over a 3 year span , and I for one never thought I would say that he is one of the best test bowlers in the world. It's one of the greatest cricket career redemptions ever and I for one respect the hell out of the dude. Being mediocre wasn't his fault , he was still the best the country had produced for a long time and that was probably more frustrating, that we had no choice. Regardless he has 3 tests to go to reach 100 tests and I think he is certainly among the Indian greats and without doubt a vital part of the greatest Indian bowling unit ever.

As we approach the end of the first cycle of the new World Test Championship, I wanted to see what would happen if the world championship was decided on a challenge basis, as in combat sports, i.e. to be the champ, you have to beat the champ. I added a caveat: the world title would not be on the line in every series played by the champion. For a team to get a shot at the title, it would have to:

1. Tour the current champions as the #1 contender; or
2. Tour the current champions after beating them at home; or
3. Host the current champions after beating them away.

To be the #1 contender, a team would have to beat the current #1 contender away from home. A team does not lose its #1 contender spot if another team wins the title using rules 2 or 3. However, a team that has earned a title shot through rules 2 and 3 would lose the shot if the title changes hands. A drawn series favours the incumbent, whether champion or #1 contender.
After applying these rules to the existing history of Test cricket, I found that the lineal world championship has been contested 60 times by eight teams. In these posts, I will provide a brief history of these 60 series, spanning 138 years. By recounting this alternative history, I hope to demonstrate the soundness of this model of deciding the world Test champion and to revisit some of the most iconic series of all time, as well as to have something to do during the commercial breaks. (Parts 1, 2 and 3)
--
PART FOUR: BLUNDERS DOWN UNDER (1983-2007)
Two dynasties dominated the world championship over four decades: the West Indies and Australia. Both teams held the record for most consecutive Test wins at the height their title reigns and, barring the series when the title changed hands between them, they only lost one Test each while defending the title during this period, in series that form cornerstones of their opponents' Test history: Pakistan's 1987-88 tour of the West Indies, and India's 2003-04 tour of Australia. England, on the other hand, were swept, 5-0, in both their title shots in this era.
​
#37: WEST INDIES v INDIA (5 TESTS, 1982-83)
Months before their historic upset in the World Cup final, India took a shot at the West Indies' Test title, having beaten the champions at home, 1-0 after six Tests, in 1978-79. The team that arrived in Jamaica in February 1983, however, had just suffered a 3-0 loss in Pakistan that ended the captaincy of Sunil Gavaskar. The new captain, Kapil Dev, took 4/45 and, along with Ravi Shastri (4/43), kept the Windies first-innings lead to three. But Andy Roberts twice ran through the side, finishing with 9/100 for the match, and Dev's 4/73 in the second innings could not prevent a four-wicket defeat. After Clive Lloyd asked Dev to bat on a rain-affected first day in the Trinidad Test, Malcolm Marshall took 5/39 to bowl India out for 175. Balwinder Sandhu dismissed both openers for ducks and Dev had Viv Richards caught behind for 1, but Lloyd (143) and Larry Gomes (123) added 237 for the fourth wicket and the champions took a 219-run lead. Mohinder Amarnath batted for nearly six hours to score 117 and, once a draw was inevitable, Dev scored a century off 95 balls.
After two days were lost to rain in the drawn Georgetown Test, as was most of the first day at Bridgetown, the Windies pace quartet bundled India out for 209 and, thanks to a 130 by Gus Logie and fifties by Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Richards and Lloyd, the champions piled on 486 by the fourth day. Amarnath (91 and 80) was the only Indian batsman to stand up to the scrutiny of the short ball, as India could only set a target of one run. Having lost the series, the Indian batsmen made the most of an easier pitch at St John's, with Shastri scoring a century, and Dev and Dilip Vengsarkar scoring nineties, in a first-innings total of 457. The Windies openers responded with centuries in a 296-run stand, as did Lloyd and Jeff Dujon in a 207-run sixth-wicket partnership, and the champions took a 93-run lead, while Amarnath scored the game's sixth century to secure a draw.
Result: West Indies retain, 2-0. Player of the Series: Mohinder Amarnath (598 runs @ 66.44)
​
#38: WEST INDIES v NEW ZEALAND (4 TESTS, 1984-85)
New Zealand had earned their maiden shot at the world title in a bad-tempered home series in 1980, as the West Indies—jaded after a tough series win in Australia, missing Viv Richards due to a sore back, and incensed by poor umpiring and the refusal of several Kiwi players to walk when they were clearly out at crucial junctures—lost the Dunedin Test by one wicket and could only draw the other two games, while threatening to cancel the tour and go home on multiple occasions.
The title defence was Richards's first series as captain, following the retirement of Clive Lloyd, and he chose to bat first on a Queen's Park Oval pitch that favoured pace bowling. Richard Hadlee dismissed Desmond Haynes and Larry Gomes with the score at 9, but Gordon Greenidge (100) and Richie Richardson (78) added 185 runs for the third wicket and Richards (57) batted with the tail to take the score to 307. Despite a century stand between John Wright and Jeff Crowe, the West Indies took a 45-run first-innings lead. After most of the third day was rained out, Richards scored 78 in 89 balls to set New Zealand 307 on the final day but, although Malcolm Marshall had the Kiwis at 83/5, the challengers escaped with a draw.
Richie Richardson scored 185 on a lifeless pitch at Georgetown, but Martin Crowe responded with 188 in 462 balls to secure another draw. However, despite nearly eight hours of play being lost in the Bridgetown Test, Malcolm Marshall took 4/40 and 7/80 to dismiss the Kiwis for 94 and 248, while Richards scored a century, in a ten-wicket victory to retain the title. Then, in the final Test at Kingston, the champions survived Hadlee's hostile bowling to score 363 before responding in kind to bowl New Zealand out for 138 and 283.
Result: West Indies retain, 2-0. Player of the Series: Malcolm Marshall (27 wickets @ 18.00)
​
#39: WEST INDIES v ENGLAND (5 TESTS, 1985-86)
Nearly a decade after Tony Greig infamously promised to make the visiting West Indies grovel, David Gower's England arrived in the Caribbean hoping more to avoid embarrassment than to wrest away the world championship. Since their last title shot, in 1981, England had held on to their #1 contender status by twice beating Australia at home, as well as India, Pakistan and New Zealand, although Sri Lanka managed a draw at Lord's in 1984. On a fast, uneven surface at Kingston, however, they collapsed for 159 and 152, with Patrick Patterson taking 7/74 on debut. Despite a 106-run fourth-wicket partnership between Gower and Allan Lamb at Port of Spain, England could only manage 176 in the first innings, before Richie Richardson's 102 and Malcolm Marshall's 62* took the champions to 399. Gower added 80 runs with Graham Gooch for the second wicket in the second innings, while Lamb and Peter Willey added 81 runs for the fourth, but Marshall's 8/132 for the match kept the target at 93 and the champions won by seven wickets.
Richardson (160) and Desmond Haynes (84) had a 194-run second-wicket partnership in the Barbados Test after Gower chose to field after winning the toss, but England took the final six wickets of the innings for 57 runs to dismiss the West Indies for 418 on the second day. Gooch and Gower then had England at 110/1 at stumps. However, on the third day, the challengers suffered a collapse of 63/9, finishing on 189. Following on, England could only manage 199 and the series was lost. It was 200 and 150 at the second Trinidad Test, and, despite a fighting 90 by Gower in the first innings, 310 and 170 in Antigua. England had been "blackwashed" in its worst ever Test series. No Englishman had managed a century, or even an average of 40, in the tour, while the bowlers took only five second-innings wickets over the five Tests.
Result: West Indies retain, 5-0. Player of the Series: Malcolm Marshall (27 wickets @ 17.85, 153 runs @ 38.25)
​
#40: WEST INDIES v PAKISTAN (3 TESTS, 1987-88)
After India took England's #1 contender status with a 2-0 win in 1986, Pakistan took it off them by winning the Bangalore Test of March 1987 by 16 runs, after the first four Tests were drawn. In the opening Test of their first ever title shot, at Georgetown in April 1988, with Viv Richards and Malcolm Marshall out due to injuries, captain and future prime minister Imran Khan took 7/80 to bowl the champions out for 292 on the first day. Javed Miandad scored 114 to get Pakistan to 297/5, before Saleem Yousuf added 62 to secure a 143-run first-innings lead. Khan then took 4/41 to complete the West Indies' first home defeat in nine years.
Richards and Marshall returned for the second Test, at Port of Spain. Khan took 4/38 to dismiss the champions for 174 on the first day, but Marshall had Pakistan at 55/5 by stumps, finishing with 4/55 to keep the Pakistani lead at 20. Richards came in to bat late on the second day, with the West Indies at 66/3 in the second innings. After Richie Richardson was dismissed early the following morning, Richards (123) added 94 runs with Carl Hooper (26) and 97 with Jeff Dujon (106*), who batted with the tail to set Pakistan a target of 372 in 129 overs. Ramiz Raja made an attacking start with 44 but, after three wickets fell for nine runs, Miandad and Saleem Malik dropped anchor, taking Pakistan into the rest day at 107/3. They eventually added 86 for the fourth wicket, before Malik was dismissed for 30 with the score at 153/4. After Khan was dismissed with the score at 169, Miandad and Ijaz Ahmed (43) added 113 for the sixth wicket. Miandad was out just before the final hour, for 102 in 265 balls, with Pakistan needing 84 off 21 overs and the West Indies needing three wickets. Marshall dismissed Wasim Akram with the score at 311, but Yousuf (35 off 59) and Ijaz Faqih (10* off 51) defended into the final over of the match, and Abdul Qadir blocked the final five balls to keep the series lead.
Fifties by Raja and Shoaib Mohammad took Pakistan to 309 on the first day of the final Test, at Bridgetown, as Marshall took 4/79. Pakistan then had the champions at 21/2, before Desmond Haynes (48 off 155) and Carl Hooper (54 off 88) added 79 for the third wicket, and Haynes and Richards (67 off 80) added 98 for the fourth. Mudassar Nazar dismissed Haynes and Gus Logie, Dujon was run out for a duck and Akram dismissed Richards with the West Indies at 201/7. Marshall counter-attacked with 48 off 62, and the Windies ended their innings, early on the third day, just three runs short. Nazar, Mohammad and Miandad added 147 for the second and third wickets but, after losing four wickets for 16 runs, Pakistan ended the day at 177/6. Khan fought back after the rest day, with an unbeaten 43, to set the champions a target of 266 to retain the title. Akram dismissed Haynes with the score at 21, and took four wickets to have the West Indies at 207/8, but Dujon (29 off 92) and Winston Benjamin (40 off 72) got the champions to a two-wicket victory.
Result: West Indies retain, 1-1. Player of the Series: Imran Khan (23 wickets @ 18.08)
​
#41: WEST INDIES v PAKISTAN (3 TESTS, 1992-93)
Pakistan returned to the Caribbean in April 1993 as ODI world champions, having preserved their #1 contender status in home series against England, Australia, India, New Zealand and Sri Lanka, and drawn two series against the West Indies. No other challengers had emerged in the five years between the two title shots, as Pakistan and England were the only teams to not lose a series against the Windies.
After the champions elected to bat first on a dry pitch with lots of variable bounce, Desmond Haynes and Phil Simmons put on a 63-run opening partnership, before all ten wickets fell for 64 runs. Aamer Sohail scored 55 to get Pakistan to 100/2, but Curtly Ambrose (4/34) and Ian Bishop (5/43) engineered a collapse of 40/8 to keep the Pakistani lead at 13. Haynes (143*) then carried his bat through the second innings, adding 103 with Richie Richardson (68) and 169 with Brian Lara (98) to take the West Indies to 333/3 at stumps on the second day. Wasim Akram (4/75) and Waqar Younis (3/88) ran through the rest of the batsmen to bowl the champions for 382 the following day, but Carl Hooper took 5/40 to win the Test by 204 runs.
Haynes scored 125 at Bridgetown in a first-innings total of 455, before Courtney Walsh took 4/56 to secure a 234-run lead. Following on, Asif Mujtaba (41 off 198 balls) and Javed Miandad (43 off 68) had Pakistan at 113/2, but the rest of the batting could only take the score to 262, allowing the champions to retain their title with a ten-wicket victory. Hooper then scored 178* in Antigua, but Inzamam-ul-Haq's 123 and rain on the final day prevented a sweep.
Result: West Indies retain, 2-0. Player of the Series: Desmond Haynes (402 runs @ 134.00)
​
#42: AUSTRALIA v WEST INDIES (c) (5 TESTS, 1996-97)
In May 1995, Mark Taylor's Australia did what had not been done since Ian Chappell's Australia visited the Caribbean, in 1973: they beat the West Indies at home. This entitled them to a title shot when Courtney Walsh's West Indies visited in 1996-97. After Walsh chose to bowl on a damp Gabba pitch, Taylor (43 off 136) and Ricky Ponting (88 off 150) added 126 runs for the second wicket, before Ian Healey, who came in to bat at 196/5, added 142 runs with Steve Waugh (66 off 184), remaining unbeaten on 161 when Australia were finally bowled out for 479. The Windies openers and Brian Lara were dismissed with the score at 77 and, after Carl Hooper (102 off 228) and Shivnarine Chanderpaul (82 off 230) batted for most of the third day to add 172 for the fourth wicket, the last seven wickets fell for 28 runs. After choosing not to enforce the follow on, Taylor declared shortly after tea on the fourth day, setting the champions 420 in 119 overs. Sherwin Campbell batted out 54.3 of those overs on his own over seven hours, before being dismissed for 113 by Michael Bevan (3/46) in the final hour of the Test, and Australia won by 123 runs.
Walsh took 5/98 at Sydney, but Australia managed to score 331 in just over four sessions. Campbell (77 off 155) and Robert Samuels (35 off 115) put together a 94-run opening partnership, but McGrath took 4/82 to secure a 27-run lead. Matthew Elliott (78 off 162) and Mark Waugh (67 off 159) then added 77 for the third wicket, before they collided while taking a run and Elliott retired hurt with a knee injury. Bevan (52 off 154) and Greg Blewett (47* off 62) stretched the target to 340. Despite a 117-run fourth-wicket partnership between Hooper (57 off 124) and Chanderpaul (71 off 68), Shane Warne (4/95) mopped up the tail soon after lunch on the fifth day, and Australia won by 124 runs.
Australia collapsed to 27/4 at Melbourne, as Curtly Ambrose took 5/55 to dismiss Australia for 219. McGrath responded with 5/50, and the West Indies could only manage a 36-run lead. Ambrose then took 4/17 in 12 overs to bowl Australia out for 122 and, even though McGrath responded with 3/41, Chanderpaul (40 off 82) and Hooper (27 off 36) added 50 runs for the fourth wicket to secure a six-wicket victory. Bevan, who had been dropped for the third Test, returned at Adelaide to take 10/113 while dismissing the Windies for 130 and 204, while also scoring 85* off 263 to assist Matthew Hayden (125 off 226) and Blewett (99 off 154) in scoring 517 against a bowling attack missing Ambrose due to injury. In the dead rubber at Perth, Ambrose returned to take 7/93 in the match, as Australia were bowled out for 243 and 194, while Lara scored 132 in a first-innings total of 384 to set up a ten-wicket victory.
Result: Australia win, 3-2. Player of the Series: Glenn McGrath (26 wickets @ 17.42)
​
#43: AUSTRALIA v INDIA (3 TESTS, 1999-2000)
Having won back the world title after 27 years, and then winning away series against South Africa and England, Australia faltered on its 1997-98 tour of India, losing the first two Tests before winning the third at Bangalore. This provided India their first title shot in 16 years when they returned Down Under in 1999. It was the first world-championship series I ever watched and might have something to do with my aversion to waking up early.
After losing to Queensland and beating a depleted New South Wales side, as well as losing a List A fixture against the Prime Minister's XI at Canberra, India made a promising start to the Adelaide Test, restricting Australia to 52/4 on the first morning. However, Steve Waugh (150 off 323) and Ricky Ponting (125 off 198) batted for the rest of the day to add 239 runs for the fifth wicket, and Shane Warne scored 86 in 100 balls on the second day to get the Australian total to 441. India lost their openers for nine runs and, although VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid added 81 for the third wicket, they were both dismissed shortly before stumps. The Indian captain, Sachin Tendulkar (61 off 133), and his soon-to-be successor, Sourav Ganguly (60 off 133), added 108 runs for the fifth wicket on the third morning, but Warne dismissed both on either side of lunch, taking 4/92 in 42 overs to secure a 156-run lead. The Indian bowlers made scoring difficult on a pitch with uneven bounce, but Greg Blewett scored 88 in 262 balls to set India a target of 396 in just under four sessions. Damien Fleming took 5/30 as, after that lbw decision, India ended the fourth day at 76/5, before being bowled out for 110.
India drew their first-class fixture against Tasmania, who declared their first innings at 548/5. Then, after rain forced the abandonment of the first session of the Boxing Day Test, Javagal Srinath dismissed Blewett and Justin Langer to have Australia at 28/2 in the eleventh over, before Michael Slater (91 off 179) added 95 runs with Mark Waugh and 69 with Steve Waugh. Ponting (67 off 85) and Adam Gilchrist (78 off 119) then added 144 runs in 32 overs for the sixth wicket. Australia were bowled out for 405 on the third morning—the final session of the second day was also rained out—and Brett Lee took 5/47 on debut to bowl India out for 238 in the second over of the fourth day. After Ajit Agarkar had Australia at 32/2, Gilchrist walked in and scored 55 off 73, and the Waughs added 58 in 77 balls before declaring at 208/5 an hour before stumps. Tendulkar, whose 116 off 191 in the first innings had helped avoid the follow-on, scored 52 in 122 balls, but India were bowled out for 195. McGrath took 5/48 and 5/55, while Langer scored 223, in an innings victory at Sydney to complete the whitewash.
Result: Australia retain, 3-0. Player of the Series: Ricky Ponting (375 runs @ 125.00)
​
#44: AUSTRALIA v WEST INDIES (5 TESTS, 2000-01)
The West Indies team that returned to Australia in 2000 was a shadow of its previous self, having lost its last five away series amid internecine disputes between the players and their board. And, after losing to Western Australia and Victoria in tour games, Jimmy Adams's side were bowled out for 82 on the first day of the Brisbane Test, with Glenn McGrath taking 6/17 in 20 overs. Michael Slater (54 off 137) and Matthew Hayden (44 off 94) overcame the Windies total in their opening partnership, putting on 101 before Hayden was run out half an hour before stumps. Marlon Black took three quick wickets on the second morning, but the Waughs added 62 in 178 balls to stabilise the innings, while Adam Gilchrist (48 off 66) and Brett Lee (62* off 80) added 61 in 60 balls for the eighth wicket, getting Australia to 332. McGrath then took 4/10 in 13 overs to bowl the challengers out for 132 to seal the innings victory.
The West Indies were at 22/5 after the first ten overs of the Perth Test, but Ridley Jacobs (96* off 151) added 75 runs with Wavell Hinds (50 off 87) and 65 with Mervyn Dillon (27 off 48) to take his team to 196. Hayden (69 off 120) and Mark Waugh (119 off 175) allowed the champions to declare with a 200-run lead shortly before stumps on the second day. Lee then took 5/61 in 15 overs to dismiss the Windies for 173 and complete Australia's twelfth consecutive Test win, breaking a record set by the challengers in 1984-85.
Brian Lara scored a century on the first day of the Adelaide Test, eventually scoring 182 in 235 balls to take his team to 354/5, before the final five wickets fell for 37 runs. Slater (83 off 123) and Hayden (58 off 119) responded with an opening partnership of 156, while Mark Waugh (63 off 142) and Ricky Ponting (92 off 156) added 123 for the fifth wicket, and the champions managed to take a 12-run lead early on the fourth day. Colin Miller, who had taken 5/81 in the first innings, followed up with 5/32 in the second, as the champions retained their title with a five-wicket victory after bowling out the Windies for 140. A century by Steve Waugh and 9/88 by Gillespie won Australia the Boxing Day Test by 352 runs, while Slater scored 96 and 86* to secure a six-wicket win at Sydney.
Result: Australia retain, 5-0. Player of the Series: Glenn McGrath (21 wickets @ 17.09)
​
#45: AUSTRALIA v SOUTH AFRICA (3 TESTS, 2001-02)
South Africa had taken over as #1 contenders by beating the West Indies in April 2001 and arrived in Australia later that year for their first title shot since returning to the cricketing fold. In the nine years since they lost their comeback Test in the West Indies, in April 1992, South Africa had lost just three Test series: a home series against Australia, and two away series against India and England. Australia, meanwhile, had seen their run of 16 consecutive victories end in India earlier that year and, despite comprehensively winning the Ashes in England, had failed to beat New Zealand in three home Tests. Steve Waugh said before the Adelaide Test that Australia wanted to prove they were "still a very good cricket side."
Justin Langer, who had been promoted to open the batting with Matthew Hayden during the Ashes, scored 116 in 246 balls on the first day at Adelaide, getting out just before the second new ball was due, with the score at 238/5. His partner at the time, Damien Martyn, went on to score 124* in 210 balls to take Australia to 439. In response, Herschelle Gibbs (78 off 187) and Gary Kirsten (47 off 86) had an 87-run opening partnership, before Neil McKenzie (87 off 168) and Mark Boucher (64 off 149) added 141 for the seventh wicket. Warne polished off the tail to finish with 5/113, and Australia took a first-innings lead of 65. Hayden (131 off 207) then added 181 runs for the third wicket with Mark Waugh (74 off 134) to set South Africa a target of 375 in the final hour of the fourth day. The Australian bowlers had the challengers at 74/8 on the final day, but Jacques Kallis's 65* in 174 balls took South Africa to the relatively respectable total of 128.
After rain delayed the start of the Boxing Day Test, Glenn McGrath dismissed the South African openers with the score on 37. McKenzie (67 off 163) put up some resistance, while Shaun Pollock (42* off 93) and Nantie Hayward (14 off 22) added 44 for the final wicket to get South Africa to 277 by tea on the second day. Langer (85 off 176) and Hayden (138 off 211) got Australia to stumps at 126/0, eventually adding 202 for the first wicket. Steve Waugh's 90 in 156 balls made sure that, even though Australia lost their final five wickets for 25 runs, the champions took a 210-run first-innings lead on the fourth morning. After Kallis was run out on 99, the challengers could only set a target of ten runs. Having retained the title, the Australian openers scored centuries in a 219-run partnership at Sydney, and Kirsten's 153 in 359 balls was the only reason the Test even went into a fourth day.
Result: Australia retain, 3-0. Player of the Series: Matthew Hayden (429 runs @ 107.25)
​
#46: AUSTRALIA v INDIA (4 TESTS, 2003-04)
India's historic victory at Eden Gardens, in 2001, stopped the Australian juggernaut in its tracks, and Sourav Ganguly's team secured a title shot on their next tour, which would be Steve Waugh's final Test series. Zaheer Khan took the only two wickets to fall on a rain-affected first day at the Gabba, as Justin Langer (121 off 194) got Australia to 262/2 at stumps. Only 16 overs of play was possible on the second day, but that was enough for Khan (5/95) and Ajit Agarkar (3/90) to get the champions to 323/9. In the 38 balls that were possible on the third, India took the final Aussie wicket, while their openers remained unbeaten on 11. In the absence of Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee, they added 50 more runs on the fourth before three wickets fell in 22 balls, but Ganguly, who had sought Greg Chappell's advice on how to survive in Australian conditions, scored 144 in 196 balls to take India to 329/6, while the tail wagged to get the first-innings total to 409 on the fifth morning. Hayden (99 off 98) and Ponting (50 off 75) then added 140 runs for the second wicket to ensure the draw.
Australia ended the first day of the Adelaide Test at 400/5, with Ponting still batting at 176. He was eventually dismissed for 242 with the score at 556/8, as Kumble took three wickets in the over to prevent any further runs from being scored and finish with 5/154 in 43 overs. A 66-run opening stand was followed by India losing four wickets for 19 runs, but Rahul Dravid added 303 runs with VVS Laxman (148 off 282), before batting with the tail to finish at 233 in 446 balls, with India just 33 runs behind. Agarkar then took 6/41 on the fourth day to bowl Australia out for 196, and Dravid scored 72* in 170 balls on the final day to secure an unlikely four-wicket win. Although Lee returned for the Boxing Day Test, Virender Sehwag scored 195 in 233 balls, adding 141 with Aakash Chopra (48 off 138) and 137 with Dravid (49 off 89), as India finished the first day at 329/4. The challengers could only add 37 runs on the second morning, losing six wickets for 16 runs in seven overs. Hayden (136 off 173) and Ponting (257 off 458) then added 234 runs for the second wicket, and Australia ended their innings on 558 late on the third day. Despite Dravid's 92 in 244 balls in the second innings, India lost their final six wickets for 33 runs to set Australia a 95-run target on the final morning, and the series was tied going into the final Test.
Sachin Tendulkar (241* off 436) and Laxman (178 off 298) added 353 runs for the fourth wicket at the SCG, with India batting for over two days before declaring at 705/7, but, despite Anil Kumble's 8/141 in 46.5 overs, centuries by Langer (117 off 149) and Simon Katich (125 off 166) allowed Australia to bat into the fourth day. Despite being 231 runs ahead, Ganguly chose to rest his bowlers by not enforcing the follow-on, and Dravid scored an attacking 91* in 114 balls, adding 138 runs for the third wicket with Tendulkar (60* off 89), before Ganguly declared half an hour before stumps, giving his team 94 overs to bowl the champions out and win the championship. However, on the final day of his Test career, Steve Waugh (80 off 159) added 142 runs for the fifth wicket with Katich (77* off 96) to save the match and retain the title.
Result: Australia retain, 1-1. Player of the Series: Rahul Dravid (619 runs @ 123.80)
​
#47: AUSTRALIA v SRI LANKA (2 TESTS, 2004)
Sri Lanka had an obscure claim to a title shot when they arrived in the winter of 2004 to play two Tests against Australia: they had beaten Pakistan away in 1995-96 to become #1 contenders, but never received a chance to contest the title, either in the West Indies or in Australia, in the next nine years. Their bid to become world champions was dealt a crippling blow after the world's leading wicket-taker, Muttiah Muralitharan, pulled out of the tour for "personal reasons." He had been no-balled for chucking on the previous Test tour, been booed incessantly when Sri Lanka returned for an ODI series and was called a chucker by the Australian prime minister, John Howard. Even a delegation sent by the government of the Northern Territory, which would host the Tests at Darwin and Cairns, failed to convince him to reconsider.
After Marvan Atapattu chose to field first at Darwin, the Australian openers added 72, while Damien Martyn (47 off 84) and Darren Lehmann (57 off 107) added 97 for the fourth wicket. However, after Sanath Jayasuriya dismissed Martyn at the stroke of tea, with the score at 177, Chaminda Vaas (5/31) and debutant Lasith Malinga (2/50) ran through the rest of the Australian batsmen for only 30 runs in the final session. Glenn McGrath responded with 5/37 to bowl Sri Lanka out for 97 on the second morning. Vaas (2/51) and Malinga (4/42) then had the champions at 77/5 before tea, but stand-in captain Adam Gilchrist scored 80 in 123 balls to set Sri Lanka a target of 312 at stumps. On the third day, Michael Kasprowicz took 7/39 to seal a 149-run victory and retain the title. Matthew Hayden (117 and 132) and Justin Langer (162 and 8) then scored centuries at Cairns but, despite Shane Warne's 7/199 in the match, which helped him equal Muralitharan's wicket tally, Vaas and Nuwan Zoysa batted out the final ten overs of the Test to secure a draw.
Result: Australia retain, 1-0. Player of the Series: Matthew Hayden (288 runs @ 72.00)
​
#48: AUSTRALIA v ENGLAND (5 TESTS, 2006-07)
England wrested away the #1 contender status from South Africa by winning a five-Test away series, 2-1, in 2004-05, then beat Australia by the same margin in the 2005 Ashes at home. It was the first time the world championship would be defended in an Ashes series since 1972. On the first day at the Gabba, Justin Langer scored 82 in 98 balls, before Ricky Ponting (196 off 319) and Michael Hussey (86 off 187) added 209 for the fourth wicket, taking Australia to 346/3 at stumps. The champions declared at 602/9, and Glenn McGrath took 6/50 to bowl England out for 157. Langer scored a century to allow Australia to declare at 202/1 early on the fourth day. Chasing 648, Paul Collingwood (96 off 155) and Kevin Pietersen (92 off 155) added 153 for the fourth wicket to get England to stumps at 293/5 but, after Pietersen was dismissed in the first over of the final day, the rest of the side could only add 77 runs.
Collingwood (206 off 392) added 113 runs for the third wicket with Ian Bell (60 off 148) on the first day of the Adelaide Test, before adding 310 runs in over a day with Pietersen (158 off 257). England declared at 551/6 in the final hour of the second day, and Andrew Flintoff dismissed Langer early to have Australia at 28/1 at stumps. However, Ponting (142 off 245) and Hussey (91 off 212) added 192 for the fourth wicket on the third day, before Clarke (124 off 224) added 98 with Adam Gilchrist (64 off 79) and 118 with Shane Warne (43 off 108) on the fourth to keep the first-innings deficit at 38. England were at 59/1 going into the final day, but lost nine wickets for 70 runs to set Australia a target of 168 in one session. Ponting (49 off 65) and Hussey (61* off 66) added 83 runs in 96 balls to secure a six-wicket win.
Hussey's 74* in 162 balls got Australia to 244 on the first day of the Perth Test, despite Monty Panesar's 5/92 and Steve Harmison's 4/48. England reached stumps at 51/2, and kept losing wickets at regular intervals, with Pietersen's 70 in 123 balls taking them to 215. Matthew Hoggard dismissed Langer off the first ball of the second innings, but Matthew Hayden (92 off 159) and Ponting (75 off 128) added 144 for the second wicket. Centuries by Hussey (103 off 156), Clarke (135* off 164) and Gilchrist (102* off 59) allowed Australia to declare at 527/5 on the third day and, despite a 170-run partnership for the second wicket between Alastair Cook (116 off 290) and Bell (87 off 163), Warne took 4/115 to seal a 206-run victory to retain the title. England could only manage totals of 159, 161, 291 and 147 in the final two Tests to be whitewashed for the first time in an Ashes series since the disastrous tour of 1920-21.
Result: Australia retain, 5-0. Player of the Series: Ricky Ponting (576 runs @ 82.28)

Introduction

Here's a question for all you England fans: In an all-time ODI top six batting lineup, how many spots would be taken up by the current generation of players? Would an all-time England ODI batting lineup simply consist of Roy, Bairstow, Root, Morgan, Stokes and Buttler, or would past players make the cut? It might seem ridiculous to suggest that all of England's current batsmen would walk into the all-time XI, but I think it's a serious possibility. Let's investigate.
​

Methodology

For ODI batsmen, there are really two metrics to consider: Batting average and strike rate. To assign a 'batting rating' (BatRat), the simplest thing to do would be to take the geometric mean of those two values (i.e. the square root of the product of these values). This should work fine for our purposes because in an ODI, the two main goals of the batting team are to score runs and to score them quickly. It may be the case that a method that weighs one of these metrics more than the other would be more suitable, but the one I'm using for this analysis is probably the simplest one available while still retaining some degree of credibility.
There are two caveats to consider, though. One is that both batting averages and strike rates in ODIs have increased over time. Once upon a time, a strike rate of 70 would have been considered decent, but now it'd be considered too sluggish for a specialist batsman. I'll thus be adjusting both values according to the aggregate stats of the era in which a particular batsman played, excluding that batsman's own stats; this post scales these stats according to a hypothetical era where the average is 30 and the strike rate is 80, so hopefully, that post's creator won't mind if I use that same benchmark for this analysis.
The second caveat is that different positions in the batting lineup have different expectations. Joe Root and Jos Buttler, for instance, do not play the same role at all, with the former being an anchor and the latter being an explosive finisher. Thus, rather than simply selecting the six best batsmen according to their BatRat, I'll be breaking the stats down per position in the lineup to account for these expectations. Hopefully, by the end of this analysis, we'll be able to determine six spots in an England all-time ODI XI.
​

Openers

In this post, I will only be considering batsmen who have at least twenty dismissals in ODIs for England. Openers are listed from highest batting rating to lowest.
​

Player	Batting average	Strike rate	Era average	Era SR	AdjAverage	AdjSR	BatRat
Jonny Bairstow	49.25	110.82	36.55	83.23	40.42	106.52	65.62
Jason Roy	41.17	107.08	36.43	84.31	33.90	101.61	58.69
Graham Gooch	40.29	62.12	31.25	59.84	38.68	83.05	56.68
Marcus Trescothick	37.37	85.21	32.12	74.24	34.90	91.82	56.61
Ian Bell	42.49	79.50	32.52	79.04	39.20	80.47	56.16
Andrew Strauss	38.16	83.46	31.87	77.66	35.92	85.97	55.57
Alex Hales	38.70	96.29	35.98	85.56	32.27	90.03	53.90
Nick Knight	40.30	73.16	33.35	74.06	36.25	79.03	53.52
Alastair Cook	36.40	77.13	32.57	78.98	33.53	78.13	51.18
Craig Kieswetter	29.96	94.17	33.36	79.66	26.94	94.57	50.48
Moeen Ali	31.33	99.84	35.45	83.73	26.51	95.39	50.29
Geoffrey Boycott	36.06	53.56	32.40	57.00	33.39	75.17	50.10
Michael Atherton	38.34	59.68	32.57	67.37	35.31	70.87	50.03
Ian Botham	26.60	73.29	31.40	60.18	25.41	97.43	49.76
Graeme Fowler	31.00	56.32	29.45	57.50	31.58	78.36	49.74
Chris Broad	40.02	55.61	33.40	65.09	35.95	68.35	49.57
Alec Stewart	33.58	68.14	32.69	70.38	30.82	77.45	48.86
Vikram Solanki	28.45	76.99	31.96	71.89	26.71	85.68	47.83
Matt Prior	23.81	78.55	32.25	78.68	22.15	79.87	42.06
Chris Tavaré	26.82	47.38	30.75	57.36	26.17	66.08	41.58
Michael Vaughan	19.28	67.72	30.76	74.60	18.80	72.62	36.95

​
That's a lot of data to sift through, so I won't go through every batsman on the list (feel free to have a look yourself if you're curious). There are some observations for me to make, however.
​

• The fact that Prior, Vaughan and Tavaré (the former two being rubbish at scoring runs and the latter being far too slow for a format where speed is required) all got extended runs in the team as openers says it all about our options over the years
• The difference between Bairstow and second-place is greater than the difference between second-place and eighth-place
• Not only is Bairstow the GOAT English ODI opener by a country mile (even when adjusted for era, he smashes everyone in both departments) but he's arguably a candidate for the GOAT ODI opener in general (although I haven't compared other countries to check this)
• Jason Roy is a solid candidate for England's second-greatest ODI opener; his average is nothing exceptional, but his high SR more than makes up for it
• Alex Hales is really nothing special; in fact, when adjusted for era, Trescothick beats him in both average and strike rate
• Speaking of Trescothick, he and Gooch were our best ODI openers prior to Roy and Bairstow despite their contrasting styles: The former batted aggressively but had a middle-of-the-road average whereas the latter had a very good average (third-best of all time when adjusted for era) but an average SR
• The decision to drop Bell was the right one in retrospect, but let us not forget that he was actually a solid opener who still has the second-highest adjusted average behind only Bairstow
• Ian Botham and Craig Kieswetter were both ahead of their time in the sense that they foreshadowed England's current strategy of batting aggressively in the opening overs, but both of them were inconsistent when it came to scoring runs and so got dropped

​
I think it's clear that Bairstow walks straight into England's best XI, and Roy gets the other opening spot. In other words, our two current ODI openers are the best ODI openers that England have ever had, so remember that next time you criticise either of them after a poor innings. Will it be the same with the #3 spot? Let's find out!
​

No. 3 Batsmen

From now on, the lists of batsmen shouldn't be nearly as long as now we're only considering a single position (whereas with openers, we're essentially considering two positions). Once again, the minimum cutoff is twenty ODI dismissals for England.
​

Player	Batting average	Strike rate	Era average	Era SR	AdjAverage	AdjSR	BatRat
Joe Root	55.86	90.56	40.27	82.11	41.61	88.23	60.59
Graeme Hick	44.53	75.26	32.76	67.85	40.78	88.74	60.15
Jonathan Trott	49.71	77.97	35.38	75.92	42.15	82.16	58.85
Robin Smith	41.94	68.85	34.76	66.75	36.20	82.52	54.65
Nasser Hussain	39.84	72.95	34.86	71.41	34.29	81.73	52.93
David Gower	33.06	77.82	33.17	66.80	29.90	93.20	52.79
Ian Bell	35.91	74.15	34.28	75.96	31.43	78.09	49.54
Kevin Pietersen	28.85	81.31	33.57	74.32	25.78	87.52	47.50
Michael Vaughan	32.66	67.27	33.89	72.99	28.91	73.73	46.17

​
Since there are fewer names to get through, I'll be going through everyone on this list individually.
​

• Once again, our current #3 (Joe Root) is England's greatest according to this metric, but he doesn't dominate to nearly the same extent as Bairstow does
• Hick in particular was a superb #3 for England in ODIs and looking at his adjusted stats, he was basically the Joe Root equivalent of his time (in fact, he has a higher BatRat than Jason Roy)
• Trott was also a fantastic #3 and his batting average is the best out of everyone on the list when eras are taken into account
• Robin Smith was a pretty good batsman as well (his BatRat is better than Hales' for comparison)
• Nasser and Gower were pretty decent, and like Trescothick and Gooch, they had two very different playstyles (Gower is the most aggressive #3 that England have ever had)
• Bell, while a solid opener, was bang average as a #3
• KP is much lower than I expected him to be; I can only predict that his middle-order numbers are much better
• Vaughan is once again the worst of the lot, though not as bad has he was as opener

​
I think you could make an argument for any one of Root, Hick or Trott in an all-time XI, but Root just about edges it if we go by these metrics. Will this streak of our current batsmen being our GOAT batsmen continue into #4? Let's see.
​

No. 4 Batsmen

Morgan has batted for both England and Ireland in ODIs, but for the purposes of this analysis, I'm only considering his figures for England.
​

Player	Batting average	Strike rate	Era average	Era SR	AdjAverage	AdjSR	BatRat
Eoin Morgan	48.56	99.28	36.68	80.12	39.72	99.13	62.75
Kevin Pietersen	38.55	84.63	34.96	75.91	33.08	89.19	54.32
Allan Lamb	37.92	75.35	34.26	72.12	33.20	83.58	52.68
Joe Root	41.91	80.09	36.41	80.38	34.53	79.71	52.46
Graham Thorpe	41.42	70.62	35.37	73.24	35.13	77.14	52.06
Paul Collingwood	37.57	70.28	35.25	75.80	31.97	74.17	48.70
David Gower	29.65	72.87	32.41	70.74	27.45	82.41	47.56
Andrew Strauss	30.45	75.12	33.73	74.38	27.08	80.80	46.78
Graeme Hick	31.48	69.74	34.98	72.36	27.00	77.10	45.63
Nasser Hussain	23.23	63.84	35.22	72.90	19.79	70.06	37.23

​
So, what can we observe?
​

• Morgan is criminally underrated as an ODI batsman; like Bairstow, he is the best in his position out of every Engand batsman by a wide margin (he also tops the list in both metrics)
• KP fares much better at #4 than at #3, but his numbers still aren't as good as I expected
• Lamb, Root and Thorpe are pretty much the same at #4 as far as BatRat goes: Above average, but nothing spectacular
• Collingwood, Gower and Strauss were pretty mediocre at #4
• It amazes me how much worse Hick was at #4 than he was at #3
• Nasser was absolutely awful at #4

​
That's four in a row for our current batsmen, and our three best #4 batsmen in ODIs aren't even English! This analysis has reflected poorly so far on past England ODI teams, so let's hope that the #5 spot will restore some dignity.
​

No. 5 Batsmen

Once again, only Morgan's performances for England will be counted in his figures.
​

Player	Batting average	Strike rate	Era average	Era SR	AdjAverage	AdjSR	BatRat
Andrew Flintoff	46.02	94.33	32.11	77.74	43.00	97.07	64.60
Ben Stokes	49.76	92.20	32.63	83.94	45.75	87.87	63.40
Paul Collingwood	43.28	81.50	31.67	76.93	41.00	84.75	58.95
Neil Fairbrother	42.00	73.14	30.41	73.65	41.43	79.45	57.37
Eoin Morgan	37.13	90.08	32.57	82.10	34.20	87.78	54.79
Ian Botham	24.95	84.20	27.39	72.48	27.33	92.94	50.40
Alec Stewart	26.05	61.15	30.70	73.29	25.46	66.75	41.22
Mike Gatting	20.54	62.34	27.06	71.79	22.77	69.47	39.77

​
What's this? A retired England player tops the list? Is this some weird parallel universe? Anyway, let's draw some conclusions from this data.
​

• Flintoff was an absolute beast at #5 in ODIs; in fact, of all the batsmen so far, only Bairstow has a higher BatRat than he does
• This is to take nothing away from Stokes, though, who is also an absolute beast at #5 and who so far has the highest batting average of all the batsmen in this analysis when adjusting for position and era, which is an achievement in and of itself
• Poor old Collingwood would probably be remembered as one of England's best ODI batsmen if he didn't have two generational talents above him
• I had no idea who Neil Fairbrother was prior to making this post, but apparently, he was a superb #5 batsman for England in ODIs
• Morgan actually does decently well here, but it's clear that #4 is his best position
• Botham was very aggressive (of all of England's #5 batsmen, only Freddie beats him in adjusted SR) but he also struggled to score runs consistently
• Stewart and Gatting...weren't particularly good in this position

​
It's a straight toss-up between the blonde all-rounder and the ginger all-rounder, and I hear the argument that their bowling should also be considered when making an all-time XI, but going solely off of their batting for the purposes of this post, Flintoff makes it in ahead of Stokes (it's remarkable that the latter has the third-highest BatRat of all the players listed so far and still can't make it in). Unlike with the top four, it seems as if England have had some quality #5 batsmen over the years; it's just a shame that we couldn't back that quality up with a decent top order until now.
​

No. 6 Batsmen

It's the final category, and I think I already know who's going to top this list. Still, let's not get ahead of ourselves; let's see what the stats say.
​

Player	Batting average	Strike rate	Era average	Era SR	AdjAverage	AdjSR	BatRat
Jos Buttler	37.30	111.12	28.52	86.06	39.24	103.30	63.66
Ravi Bopara	31.00	84.93	28.86	81.53	32.22	83.34	51.82
Eoin Morgan	24.60	90.10	28.99	84.73	25.46	85.07	46.54
Andrew Flintoff	22.89	83.03	27.81	76.66	24.69	86.65	46.26
Paul Collingwood	27.42	71.59	28.50	77.71	28.86	73.70	46.12
Ian Botham	20.79	74.34	24.63	74.86	25.32	79.44	44.85

​
No surprises here, I think.
​

• Buttler is pretty clearly England's greatest ever #6 batsman in ODIs and it's not even close
• If anything, it could be argued that this methodology does Buttler a disservice due to him being a 'floating batsman' (his overall stats are actually better than his stats at just #6) but I have to be consistent here
• Ravi Bopara of all people is England's second-greatest #6 ODI batsman of all time
• Everyone else who has batted at #6 with some regularity hasn't done that good of a job at it
• Then again, the fact that only six batsmen made the twenty-dismissals cutoff (and that all but two of those batsmen qualify for at least one other category as well) suggests that the #6 position is particularly volatile, at least as far as England is concerned

​
I think it's obvious who takes the #6 spot in our all-time XI. Arise, Sir Ravi Bopara.
...
Nah, of course it's Buttler.
​

Conclusion

Taking into account only the batting ratings as discussed in this analysis, and not considering bowling, captaincy, wicket-keeping, team balance or any other factors, here's an all-time England ODI Top Six:
​
Jason Roy
Jonny Bairstow
Joe Root
Eoin Morgan
Andrew Flintoff
Jos Buttler
​
Honourable mentions include Graeme Hick and Jonathan Trott (both at #3), as well as Ben Stokes, Paul Collingwood and Neil Fairbrother (all three at #5).
So, yeah, 5/6 of the all-time England ODI Top Six are still part of our current first team, and Ben Stokes narrowly missed out on that #5 spot. That...is mind-blowing. I'd be shocked if any other ODI team (apart from nations which only recently started playing ODIs) had most or all of their current Top Six form their all-time Top Six, and yet for England, I'm not even that surprised. We've had the occasional ODI talent, but they have generally played in teams consisting of average ODI players (and that's if they're lucky).
It's quite hard to express just how different England have become in ODIs since 2015. Our ODI record prior to then was nothing special and we had precisely zero trophies to our name. Within five years, however, we've assembled one of the finest ODI batting lineups of all time, bred players who have become generational greats (a couple of whom might even be considered to be all-time greats), reached #1 in the rankings and, most importantly, won a Men's ODI World Cup for the first time ever.
Trevor Bayliss gets a lot of stick for how he handled the Test team, and as I pointed out in my most recent post, that criticism is largely justified. Seriously, we were awful for those four years and won games almost purely through individual brilliance. However, we have to remember that Bayliss was brought in to rejuvenate the ODI side and win a World Cup, bearing in mind that prior to his arrival, the England ODI team had become a laughing stock following the disaster that was the 2015 World Cup. To turn that around in just four years is seriously impressive and if for nothing else, I think we England fans should at least be grateful to Bayliss for that.

A common joke among England fans is that bowling all-rounder batsman James Vince looks superb for 20 or 30 runs, then inevitably gets himself dismissed before he can reach the 40-run mark. Today, I will be using statistics to determine if this is actually the case. Yes, I really am that bored at the minute.
For this comparison, I will be considering all players who have batted at least twenty innings for England at positions #1-#7 since the start of 2015 (Root, Stokes, Cook, Bairstow, Buttler, Ali, Burns, Denly, Jennings, Ballance, Malan, Pope, Hales, Stoneman, the recently-retired Bell and of course Vince himself). I will also include every batsman who averages 50 or more with a minimum of twenty innings played and who has played a Test match from the start of 2015 onwards (this means Smith, Kohli, Williamson, Labuschagne, Sangakkara, Younis Khan, Chanderpaul, de Villiers and of course the legendary Adam Voges). Finally, I'll be including Don Bradman because why the heck not.
In the first table, I'll be presenting each player, their batting average, their total number of innings batted, their no. of innings in which they scored between 0 and 19, their no. of innings in which they scored between 20 and 39 and finally, their no. of innings in which they scored 40 or more. Players are listed by batting average from highest to lowest.
​

Player	Average	Innings	0-19	20-39	40+
Don Bradman	99.94	80	22	12	46
Marnus Labuschagne	63.43	23	7	2	14
Steve Smith	62.84	131	45	24	62
Adam Voges	61.87	31	13	7	11
Kumar Sangakkara	57.40	233	86	40	107
Virat Kohli	53.62	145	60	22	63
Younis Khan	52.05	213	86	42	85
Shivnarine Chanderpaul	51.37	280	108	52	120
Kane Williamson	50.99	140	57	21	62
AB de Villiers	50.66	191	69	37	85
Joe Root	47.99	177	70	31	76
Alastair Cook	45.35	291	128	50	113
Ian Bell	42.69	205	97	34	74
Ollie Pope	37.94	20	12	2	6
Ben Stokes	37.84	122	52	31	39
Gary Ballance	37.45	42	18	12	12
Jonny Bairstow	34.74	123	55	29	39
Jos Buttler	33.90	82	37	19	26
Rory Burns	32.44	38	19	6	13
Joe Denly	29.53	28	11	11	6
Moeen Ali	28.97	104	59	21	24
Dawid Malan	27.84	26	14	5	7
Mark Stoneman	27.68	20	10	4	6
Alex Hales	27.28	21	14	2	5
Keaton Jennings	25.19	32	19	7	6
James Vince	24.90	22	13	4	5

​
By coincidence, Vince is at the very bottom when it comes to batting average (I swear I didn't plan this). With Vince, the perception is that he often reaches 20 but fails to reach 40. Thus, the next table will be looking at what percentage of the time each of the above batsmen reach 20 runs in an innings, ranked from highest to lowest.
​

Player	Percentage reached 20 runs
Don Bradman	72.50 %
Marnus Labuschagne	69.57 %
Steve Smith	65.65 %
AB de Villiers	63.87 %
Kumar Sangakkara	63.09 %
Shivnarine Chanderpaul	61.43 %
Joe Denly	60.71 %
Joe Root	60.45 %
Younis Khan	59.62 %
Kane Williamson	59.29 %
Virat Kohli	58.62 %
Adam Voges	58.06 %
Ben Stokes	57.38 %
Gary Ballance	57.14 %
Alastair Cook	56.01 %
Jonny Bairstow	55.28 %
Jos Buttler	54.88 %
Ian Bell	52.68 %
Rory Burns	50.00 %
Mark Stoneman	50.00 %
Dawid Malan	46.15 %
Moeen Ali	43.27 %
James Vince	40.91 %
Keaton Jennings	40.63 %
Ollie Pope	40.00 %
Alex Hales	33.33 %

​
There are actually a lot of insightful conclusions you can draw from this sort of 'breaking down innings into chunks' data (see this wonderful analysis by u/insideoutovercover for an example) but we're not here for that; instead, we're here for some spicy James Vince memes. Still, aside from Vince, there are a few interesting case studies here.
Firstly, Vince actually isn't as good at reaching the 20-run mark as I thought he was. Nearly 60% of the time, he gets out before then. Small sample size, I know, but his reputation of reliably making 20s and 30s doesn't appear to be backed up by the stats.
Secondly, Ollie Pope's stats here are pretty poor and a little surprising considering that he's yet to be dismissed for a duck in his Test career. His average is a lot better than the players around him, though, so perhaps he's just good at making big scores once he does get his eye in. Also, it could simply be the case that he just hasn't played that many innings so his numbers are a little skewed.
Thirdly, out of the batsmen who average 50 or above, Smith, AB and Sangakkara rank pretty highly in terms of consistently reaching 20 runs, whereas Voges and Kohli struggle to reach that landmark relatively speaking. In Voges' case, I'm not at all surprised given how a couple of great series completely blew up his average, and in Kohli's case, he has a reputation for either going cheaply or scoring piles of runs so these stats shouldn't be particularly shocking.
Fourthly, out of the England batsmen, Dendulkar is the king of reaching 20 runs consistently (in fact, in that metric, he beats out three of the Fab Four) and Root isn't far behind. Beyond England's generational batting talent (and Joe Root), Stokes and Ballance do pretty well when it comes to reaching the 20-run mark.
Finally, this Bradman fellow seems like a decent batsman. He's got nothing on Marnus Labuschagne, though.
This is only part of the story, however. As well as his reputation for consistently reaching 20-30 runs, Vince also has a reputation for consistently getting out on 20-30 runs. Let us then create a table ranking these batsmen by how often they reach 40 runs given that they've already reached 20 runs. To do this, we just simply take the number of innings in which they've scored 20+ runs and divide that by the number of innings in which they've scored 40+ runs.
​

Player	Percentage reached 40 runs after reaching 20 runs
Marnus Labuschagne	87.50 %
Don Bradman	79.31 %
Ollie Pope	75.00 %
Kane Williamson	74.70 %
Virat Kohli	74.12 %
Kumar Sangakkara	72.79 %
Steve Smith	72.09 %
Alex Hales	71.43 %
Joe Root	71.03 %
Shivnarine Chanderpaul	69.77 %
AB de Villiers	69.67 %
Alastair Cook	69.33 %
Ian Bell	68.52 %
Rory Burns	68.42 %
Younis Khan	66.93 %
Adam Voges	61.11 %
Mark Stoneman	60.00 %
Dawid Malan	58.33 %
Jos Buttler	57.78 %
Jonny Bairstow	57.35 %
Ben Stokes	55.71 %
James Vince	55.56 %
Moeen Ali	53.33 %
Gary Ballance	50.00 %
Keaton Jennings	46.15 %
Joe Denly	35.29 %

​
It won't surprise anybody that for the most part, batsmen tend to find it easier to get from 20 to 40 than they do to get from 0 to 20. Kohli of course does well here, and of the England batsmen, both Pope and Hales are ridiculously better at converting 20s into 40s than they are at reaching 20 in the first place (of course, Hales was so bad at reaching 20 that his ability to push on to 40 didn't really matter). Of all the batsmen we have analysed, there are only three exceptions to this general rule:

1. Stokes: He reaches 20 runs 57.38% of the time and from there, he reaches 40 runs 55.71% of the time. It's only a slight drop, but any sort of drop is unusual, at least for the batsmen analysed in this post (for all I know, this particular list of players could be the exception rather than the norm). His ability to get starts is certainly better than most recent English batsmen and his average suggests that he does a relatively good job of cashing in once he reaches 40 runs compared to other English batsmen.
2. Ballance: Like Stokes but worse. He reaches the 20-run mark 57.14% of the time (nearly as often as Stokes does) but then there's just a 1-in-2 chance that he kicks on to 40. His average is about the same as Stokes', though, so he can be quite dangerous once he reaches 40. I don't know for sure why this happens, but my hypothesis is that around the 20-run mark, teams begin to figure out Ballance's glaring technical flaw, and if they haven't figured it out by the time he reaches 40, they probably aren't figuring it out any time soon.
3. Denly: By far the most bizarre batsman on this list; he somehow finds it easy to reach 20 but can't seem to reach 40 to save his life. It's not just a slight difference either; he reaches 20 runs 60.71% of the time (the best out of the English batsmen) yet once he's settled, he only reaches the 40-run mark 35.29% of the time (way behind the second-worst, Keaton Jennings, at 46.15%). I...can't explain this. Seriously, I'm at a loss here. For most batsmen, they tend to struggle in the nervous nineties; for Root, it's the nervous sixties; for Denly, it's the nervous twenties and thirties.

You know who isn't on the above list? That's right: Marnus Labuschagne. In fact, he's more reliable at reaching 40 once he reaches 20 than Bradman is. Labuschagne > Bradman confirmed.
Oh, also, Vince isn't on the list either. If you were to present two scenarios to England fans (Vince reaching 20 and Vince reaching 40 given that he's already reached 20) and ask them which one is more likely, I suspect most of them would say that the former is the likelier scenario (although perhaps I just have a very skewed perception of the general opinion among fellow England fans).
As a matter of fact, Vince reaches 20 runs around 40.91% of the time while he reaches 40 runs 55.56% of the time in situations where he's already scored 20. That doesn't seem too unusual for a batsman of his rather low ability. Why, then, does he seemingly have this reputation of scoring 20-30 runs before immediately getting out? To be honest, I have no idea. Perhaps this reputation is simply something that I've conjured up in my imagination rather than it being a reputation which actually exists in the minds of England fans. Denly certainly has a reputation for scoring twenty-odd or thirty-odd before being dismissed, but in his case, the stats actually back it up.
A slightly more tongue-in-cheek one this time, but I think there's a lot of genuinely useful stuff you can find out from this sort of analysis. Anyway, I hope you guys enjoyed the read.

Introduction

Ever since the 2019 Ashes (where all-rounder Ben Stokes was widely regarded as being England's best performer), I've often seen the question asked of who England's GOAT all-rounder is: Botham, Flintoff or Stokes? See this article for an example. However, this made me think: Have we really only produced three all-rounders who could stake a genuine claim to being England's best? Are there others who ought to be in the conversation but aren't for whatever reason? Could it be the case that Botham, Flintoff and Stokes aren't even that impressive in the grand scheme of things?
To answer these questions and more, I've decided to investigate every England player who has scored at least 2000 runs and taken at least 50 wickets in Test matches. I wanted to pick cutoffs which would ensure that all the candidates demonstrated at least a decent amount of longevity while also removing part-time bowlers and bowlers who could bat a bit from the equation (largely, though not completely, with success). The players I'll be considering are Moeen Ali, Trevor Bailey, Ian Botham, Stuart Broad, Ted Dexter, Andrew Flintoff, Tony Greig, Wally Hammond, Wilfred Rhodes, Ben Stokes and Frank Woolley.
Now, obviously, some of the above names aren't really in contention for the title of England's greatest all-rounder in Tests, but I didn't want to be too restrictive as the volume of Tests played in the early days was rather low (it pains me enough that W. G. Grace didn't come close to making the cut on either criterion). With that being said, as an agent of the Batriarchy^TM, I'm going to start by comparing the batting.
​

Batting

In Test matches, you'd think that comparing batting ability would be as simple as ranking the players by average. However, I am not wholly satisfied with this, as what constitutes a 'good' batting average has changed over time, and it would seem to me to be unfair not to take account of that. Thus, for each player, I will look at the mean average of top-order batsmen with a minimum of twenty dismissals during their Test career as well as the standard deviation, then I will adjust their average assuming a mean of 40 and a standard deviation of 10. Number of fifties and centuries and high scores will also be included purely for the sake of curiosity.
Breaking down averages by position is something which I sometimes like to do, but for this analysis, I would hope that taking a good cross-section of all batsmen during a particular era will account for such differences, especially given that several of these players batted in different positions throughout their career. Without further ado, here's the list sorted by highest adjusted batting average to lowest.
​

Player	Batting average	Era average	Era standard deviation	Adjusted average	50/100	High score
Ted Dexter	47.89	37.39	9.90	50.61	27/9	205
Wally Hammond	58.45	42.55	15.39	50.33	24/22	336*
Tony Greig	40.43	38.52	9.62	41.99	20/8	148
Ben Stokes	37.84	37.10	9.51	40.77	22/10	258
Ian Botham	33.54	35.63	9.18	37.72	22/14	208
Frank Woolley	36.07	40.63	15.45	37.05	23/5	154
Andrew Flintoff	31.77	36.07	10.62	35.95	26/5	167
Wilfred Rhodes	30.19	35.28	12.45	35.91	11/2	179
Trevor Bailey	29.74	34.59	11.08	35.63	10/1	134*
Moeen Ali	28.97	37.57	9.69	31.12	14/5	155*
Stuart Broad	19.05	36.56	9.18	20.92	13/1	169*

​
Hammond was a difficult one for me to adjust as he was unfortunate enough to have played in the same era as the walking statistical anomaly that was Sir Don Bradman. I was debating whether or not I should exclude Bradman from his calculations, but ultimately, I decided that in the interest of fairness, I couldn't apply a different standard to him just because his era's stats were disproportionately affected by one guy. FWIW, the mean average for Hammond's era when excluding Bradman was still over 40 and the standard deviation was still well above 10, but Hammond is comfortably the best batsman on the list by adjusted average if Bradman is excluded.
As for the rest, I don't think there are any real shocks here; as you might expect, batting all-rounders like Greig and Stokes do better on this metric than bowling all-rounders like Ali. Rhodes seems surprisingly low though considering that he was one of Hobbs' opening partners (then again, he started his career as a bowler who could bat a bit). Broad, of course, is well behind everybody else when it comes to batting. However, you can't have an all-rounder who can bat but can't bowl, so let's take a look at the bowling.
​

Bowling

For the bowling, I'll be taking the geometric mean of the reciprocal of the era-adjusted bowling average and the 'wickets per match' (WPM) value. Era adjustments will consider all bowlers who have taken twenty wickets of more during that all-rounder's career, and will be assuming a bowling average of 30 and a standard deviation of 5.
Normally, I like to distinguish between pace bowlers and spin bowlers. However, I won't be doing that here for two reasons.
Firstly, pace bowlers tend to have lower averages whereas spin bowlers tend to have higher WPM values. My hope is that everything will balance out when the geometric mean is taken.
Secondly, distinguishing between pacers and spinners is not that easy. Greig bowled both medium pace and off-spin; Woolley bowled both medium pace and slow left-arm orthodox; Hammond generally bowled fast-medium but could supposedly bowl off-spin as well; Rhodes is listed as a slow left-arm bowler, but in his later years, he relied more on accuracy and movement through the air (think Glenn McGrath but bowling at a spinner's speed); even Stokes has bowled a bit of off-spin. This is going to get too complicated if I try to account for all this, so I'm going to keep it simple.
​

Player	Bowling average	Era average	Era standard deviation	Adjusted average	WPM	BowlRat	Best bowling	5WI	10WM
Stuart Broad	27.65	34.57	8.23	25.80	3.59	0.373	8/15	18	3
Ian Botham	28.40	33.03	7.69	26.99	3.75	0.373	8/34	27	4
Andrew Flintoff	32.78	35.05	8.56	28.68	2.86	0.316	5/58	3	0
Moeen Ali	36.59	31.92	7.19	33.25	3.02	0.301	6/53	5	1
Ben Stokes	31.40	32.73	7.35	29.10	2.36	0.285	6/22	4	0
Tony Greig	32.20	31.40	7.48	30.54	2.43	0.282	8/86	6	2
Wilfred Rhodes	26.96	28.40	7.05	28.98	2.19	0.275	8/68	6	1
Trevor Bailey	29.21	29.54	8.19	29.80	2.16	0.269	7/34	5	1
Frank Woolley	33.91	29.87	6.85	32.95	1.30	0.198	7/76	4	1
Ted Dexter	34.93	31.67	7.25	32.24	1.06	0.182	4/10	0	0
Wally Hammond	37.80	30.50	7.53	34.85	0.98	0.167	5/36	2	0

​
Broad is listed ahead of Botham because he has the higher bowling rating; it's just that when rounded to three decimal places, you can't see that. Stokes and Greig do better than I expected, whereas I was expecting a bit more from Rhodes (once again). It's fair to say that Dexter and Hammond were part-timers (though contemporaries of the latter insist that he could have been a superb bowler had he taken any interest in it).
​

All-Round

Finally, let's take the geometric mean of the adjusted batting average and the bowling rating to assign an all-round rating and finally determine who England's greatest ever Test all-rounder is.
​

Player	Adjusted batting average	BowlRat	AllRoundRat
Ian Botham	37.72	0.373	3.751
Tony Greig	41.99	0.282	3.442
Ben Stokes	40.77	0.285	3.407
Andrew Flintoff	35.95	0.316	3.370
Wilfred Rhodes	35.91	0.275	3.142
Trevor Bailey	35.63	0.269	3.099
Moeen Ali	31.12	0.301	3.062
Ted Dexter	50.61	0.182	3.032
Wally Hammond	50.33	0.167	2.903
Stuart Broad	20.92	0.373	2.794
Frank Woolley	37.05	0.198	2.711

​
Well, there you go. A statistical ranking of England's Test all-rounders. What conclusions can we draw?
Before making this analysis, my prediction was that Botham would finish on top. Not only does this table show that he is England's greatest every Test all-rounder but he occupies that position by a comfortable margin. It's well-known that Botham's form dipped spectacularly in his later years so the fact that he's still easily England's GOAT Test all-rounder even when his later poor form is included demonstrates just how amazing he was in his prime.
Peak Botham was genuinely one of the ATG all-rounders; it's just a shame that his slump means that he isn't viewed in the same vein as Sobers, Khan, Kallis or Pollock. The notion that there's any serious debate over whether he's better than Flintoff and Stokes seems ridiculous to me; Flintoff especially bemuses me, as I struggle to see by what metric one could claim that Flintoff was better than Botham (in Tests, that is; I still believe that Flintoff is England's GOAT ODI all-rounder).
Tony Greig was a controversial figure to say the least: He ran out West Indian batsman Bernard Julien when the latter was heading back towards the pavilion under the mistaken impression that play had finished (the angry reaction from the crowd forced Greig to withdraw the appeal); he was the England captain who infamously vowed to make the West Indians grovel; and he eventually lost the captaincy to Mike Brearley following his strong advocacy for Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket (he subsequently had a poor showing at the tournament, scored a duck in the final after promising to make a century and never played professional cricket again).
These controversies have, in my view, led people to underappreciate Greig as an all-rounder. The England all-rounder debate is often framed as being a comparison between Botham, Flintoff and Stokes, but while Greig was nowhere near as good as Botham was, there is a strong case to be made (in my view) that he was at least as good as, if not better than, Flintoff and Stokes. He was a solid batsman and a very handy bowler who could bowl both medium pace and off-spin; I can think of few England players who were as versatile.
Stokes is slightly unusual in that he's still playing, but it would appear that based on his career so far, he is England's third-greatest Test all-rounder, which isn't a bad position to be in. Of course, it is feasible that he overtakes Greig, or that he drops below Flintoff; I doubt he'll get anywhere near Botham, though. All the hyperbole about how Stokes is England's greatest ever all-rounder (he clearly isn't) or that he should be held up to the same level as the likes of Sobers and Kallis (a laughable claim) shouldn't distract from the fact that he has actually been a good all-rounder so far, and the best thing is that he should be hitting his peak at this age.
Arguing that Flintoff was not as good as Stokes is might be controversial, but that's what the methodology shows (a different method might yield a different result). As I said, Flintoff was fantastic in ODIs, and it's not as if he was poor in Tests; he's still comfortably ahead of Wilfred Rhodes. Freddie has certainly established himself as being among England's great all-rounders; I just think that he tends to be a tad overrated in Tests.
Rhodes is an interesting case. He began his career as a spin bowler who could bat a bit at Yorkshire, and he batted in the lower order for England until 1910 when he became part of England's opening pair (along with Jack Hobbs); from then until the First World War, he hardly ever bowled. That changed after the war when Yorkshire was short on bowlers, meaning that Rhodes had to resume his duties as frontline bowler while also opening for England.
He eventually stopped being selected from 1921 onwards due to poor form and age (he was 43 at this point) but made a brief return in 1926 against Australia following several years of strong domestic bowling performances (his bowling won the Ashes for England) and again in 1930 against the West Indies before finally retiring at the age of 52(!) To this day, he holds the record for the most FC matches played (1,110) and the most FC wickets taken (4,204 @ 16.72!). If anyone deserves to be declared England's greatest all-rounder on longevity alone, Rhodes does.
Bailey's stats don't do him justice, I think; he was a fine all-rounder for Essex, but he couldn't quite replicate the same consistency at Test level. He nonetheless helped England regain the Ashes in 1953, first securing a draw in the first Test after four hours of blocking (he finished on 71* after 257 minutes of batting) and then bowling negatively down the leg side in the fourth Test at Headingley to secure the draw once again and keep England's Ashes hopes alive (something about England all-rounders performing well at Headingley during the Ashes...).
Nonetheless, Bailey also made the slowest half-century in FC cricket in Brisbane in the 1958-59 Ashes (taking 357 minutes, or nearly six hours) and was subsequently dropped after England were humiliated by Australia. Bailey was a handy all-rounder, but it's fair to say that he's not among England's best.
Moeen Ali is, depending on who you ask, a county-level bits-and-pieces player who shouldn't be anywhere near the Test team or a world-class all-rounder who has been grossly mismanaged by the ECB. Either way, while one may question whether his bowling is good enough for a frontline spinner, it's more than adequate for an all-rounder. The issue lies with his batting, with only Broad performing worse. Some will no doubt claim that he could have been truly great with better management, but I can only go off his actual stats, not what he might have become.
Ted Dexter was really more of a batsman who could bowl a bit; it's worth noting that he's the only player in this analysis not to have taken a 5fer in Tests. He was known for being an aggressive counter-attacking middle-order batsman, and his batting stats are very impressive, but he was probably known more for his golfing skills than his bowling skills (no, seriously, look it up).
Wally Hammond is possibly England's greatest ever batsman (he's certainly in the conversation at least) but his all-round stats are seriously hampered by his bowling. I can't say that I've ever seen Hammond bowl myself, and I doubt anyone reading this has either, so I just have to take his peers at their word when they claim that he could have been a truly great all-rounder had he been more willing to bowl. To be honest, even his FC bowling stats aren't that impressive, but he was apparently Gloucestershire's quickest bowler when he got really annoyed.
Stuart Broad is...well, he's not really an all-rounder, is he? At one point, he was seen by some as the natural heir to Flintoff, but it's fair to say that that hasn't really materialised. Somehow, though, he isn't the worst all-rounder on the list.
Ah, Frank Woolley. A bit of an enigma, really. Wikipedia says of him that 'Woolley is generally regarded as one of cricket's greatest-ever all-rounders', which seems bizarre when his stats are taken into account. Nonetheless, he holds the record for the second-most runs at FC level behind only Jack Hobbs (58,959 @ 40.77) as well as the most FC catches by a non-wicketkeeper (1,018). He also took 2,066 FC wickets @ 19.87, so he clearly wasn't terrible.
That being said, despite him being able to bowl both medium pace and slow left-arm orthodox, his bowling at Test level just wasn't up to scratch. If he could have replicated his FC stats at Test level then he'd probably be ahead of even Botham, but as it stands, out of all the England players who have scored 2000 runs and taken 50 wickets in Tests, Woolley is the worst in terms of all-round ability despite a very respectable batting record.
​

Silly Stuff

But wait, I hear you ask. What about Alastair 'The Bedford Ambrose' Cook (credit to u/ElbethRidge for the nickname)? Surely, he is England's greatest ever all-rounder? Well, yes, obviously, but I excluded him to give the others a fair chance. Here are his stats if you're interested:
​

Adjusted batting average	Adjusted bowling average	WPM	BowlRat	AllRoundRat
49.52	13.90	0.01	0.021	1.023

​
Finally, there's one last comparison that I want to do.
​

Player	Adjusted batting average	Adjusted bowling average	WPM	BowlRat	AllRoundRat
Chris Broad	41.96	n/a	0.00	0.000	0.000
Stuart Broad	20.92	25.80	3.59	0.373	2.794

​
Stuart Broad is a better all-rounder than his dad, and it's not even close.
​
Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the read. I think we can all agree that Botham is England's GOAT Test all-rounder, but I think some discussion can be had regarding whether Greig, Flintoff or Stokes is the second-best. I personally would go with Greig, but I'm open to alternative arguments.

Warning: Long Read - but it's raining in Southampton so who cares.
I've posted a couple of other long-reads and they got some nice feedback so thought I'd have another deep-dive into statsguru.
Watching Pakistan's old-school tail-enders reminded me of something - there are few things more satisfying to watch on a cricket field than someone objectively bad at batting flaying the bowling to all parts. Tail-enders, bar a select few, all have some talent with the bat, but lack that certain something that makes a top end batsman – concentration, patience or, more simply, they just prefer bowling. Though that doesn't take away from the joy we experience seeing these bowlers scrapping away in support of a senior batsman, or that occasional moment where they enter a dream state and realise all kids' aspirations of crashing boundaries for their country.
\Unless stated all statistics used in this post are from 1 January 1995.*
So what makes a great tail-ender? A tail-ender too talented ceases to be a tail-ender and the lack of inability takes away from the enjoyment. Being a mediocre blocker who averages 12 quickly fades from memory. What makes a great tail-ender are three things: gross incompetence – being absolutely unable to bat despite obvious effort on the part of the player; a swashbuckling nature – hitting boundaries in an attempt to get busy bowling; or that moment when a tail-ender wins a match with bat in hand and the cricketing world collectively loses their minds.
I am of the opinion that tail-enders are numbers 10 and 11. There are of course exceptions to the rule but generally number 9s of recent memory are slightly too competent to create the hilarity of a true tail-ender.
Since 1995 there have been 25 scores of 50 or more by number 10s with two of those being hundreds. But those centuries were scored by Pat Symcox and Abul Hasan, who both had First-class averages of over 26, hardly the number of a tail-ender.
Searching through the individual efforts of number 11s returns results closer to my image of a true bunny, with only eleven 50s and no hundreds – Ashton Agar's 98 being the closest effort. But again Agar hasn't batted at 11 since that innings so rather than restrict the search for tail-end performance by batting position, perhaps filtering by 'career competence' returns better results.
Highest scores with a low average
There are three defining average bands for a lower order batsman: 10-20 – reasonably competent and capable of something with the bat; 5-10 – a very limited batsman but has a decent forward push; 0-5 – a walking wicket.
There have been fourteen hundreds scored by men with averages of under 20 with only Harbhajan Singh achieving the feat twice. Jerome Taylor has the lowest test average (12.96) of anyone with a test 100. Though spare a thought for Shane Warne. He averaged 17.32 and never made a century. That despite a 99, a 90 and ten further scores of 50 of more. He holds the record for most Test runs without a hundred.
Incidentally amongst the 15 men with the most fifties without scoring a test 100, four of them have a highest score of 99. It really does give people the jitters.
Dropping down to the the 5-10 bracket one man stands out. Oh Jimmy Jimmy – he has the most runs of anyone averaging under 10 and also the highest score of 81. No man averaging under 10 has managed to make fifty twice.
Finally the bunnies. Once again an England player leads the way with Monty Panesar's 26 against Sri Lanka. A friend at university played club cricket with Monty and he assured me that he batted 3 and smashed it everywhere (before bowling his 13 overs for not many). This talent never really translated to test cricket apart from that glorious evening at Cardiff (more on that later). Incidentally his high score of 26 against Sri Lanka took place in a match where Andrew Flintoff was captain, Gloucestershire medium-pacer Jon Lewis took the new ball, and Sir Alistair Cook was batting at 3. The universe had clearly taken a sudden lurch off course.
The obstinate blockers
Judging tail-end performances simply by the number of runs scored is to do a disservice to valiant rearguards that often only serve to delay the inevitable, but on few magical occasions save games for their country.
Geoff Allott's infamous 77 ball duck was one such occasion of saving the game. While it took place in New Zealand's first innings in reply to South Africa's massive 621-5 dec., it took up valuable time and proved to New Zealand's top order that batting was perhaps not so difficult. The match was eventually drawn.
In more recent memory England's Anderson showed off his batting once more surviving 55 deliveries in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to save a game against Sri Lanka in 2014. He was out off the penultimate ball of the day. A bitter reminder of the tiny margins of top international sport.
In 2009, however, Anderson and Monty were able to have their moment as blockers. The pair survived a barrage from Peter Siddle, Nathan Hauritz and, er, Marcus North, for 11.3 overs to save the match. Not only did it save the game but it crushed the Australian spirit as England went on to re-claim the Ashes, all on the back of an obstinate performance by England's two worse batsman.
Only eight times in the last 25 years has a number 11 survived over 100 balls. Trent Boult leads the way, facing 137 in New Zealand's first innings against Bangladesh in 2013. But the real stand-out on this list is Danny Morrison.
Morrison is now a 'love him or hate him' commentator whose palpable enthusiasm flits between contrived ardour and childlike eagerness. But as a cricketer he was an excellent bowler, sitting 8th all time for test wickets by a New Zealander. Yet as a batsman, he was lacking – once holding the record for most ducks in test matches. He was by all accounts 'a rabbit' and at one point considered the world's worst No. 11.
So when he walked to the crease with over 40 overs remaining in the final day of the First Test between New Zealand and England all hope seemed lost. He had just seen his side lose five wickets before lunch, and with a lead of just 11, all chance of escape had evaporated. What followed was a cricketing miracle. Somehow Morrison survived 133 balls for 14*, adding 106 runs with Nathan Astle to save the game. An incredible moment for a man who had long been teased for his batting incompetence, finally able to have his moment as a batsman on the world stage. It was his last act as a Test cricketer.
Squeaking over the line
Since 1995 there have only been 7 one wicket wins in test cricket and remarkably one man has been at the crease on two occasions. That man is Courtney Walsh. A member of the 90s feared fast bowlers club Walsh was certainly viewed a little more fondly by the opposition when he was batting, averaging a measly 7.54 over his career and only once reaching 30. But twice he has been able to secure victory with bat in hand – once with a brief 0* against Australia watching Brian Lara complete one of the great test innings, the other a 72 minute rearguard against Pakistan as he and Jimmy Adams ground out the 19 runs need for victory.
Incidentally Walsh's 72 minutes is the third longest innings by a number 11 in test history in a successful fourth innings chase. Only Vishwa Fernando (73 minutes) and another New Zealander, Ewen Chatfield (104! minutes) batted longer. As an Englishman it is my duty to mention the fourth longest innings, owned by Jack Leach who batted for exactly 60 minutes at Headingly last year, every minute of which should be compulsory viewing for everyone in England. Perhaps it can be added to the school curriculum.
The night-watchman
Leach also holds a record as a night-watchman for his 92, the highest score by a night-watchman opening the innings.
The highest and most preposterous of night-watchman scores was made in 2006 over 4 hot days in Bangladesh. Jason Gillespie averaged 15.64 going into that test and had a high score of 54*. Nine and a half hours and 425 balls later, with his team mates watching on in disbelief, Gillespie completed the most remarkable of double centuries. In a recurring theme, it turned out to be Gillespie's final test.
The Dashers
Realistically the long marathon innings by tail-enders happen only once in a blue moon, so we have to be content with a more frequent, but no less appetising dish of lower-order boundaries. When a tail-ender's eyes light up to the view of a loopy off spinner, or when he backs away to the opening bowler and flays outside off stump, we are filled with a warm fuzzy feeling usually reserved for wintery mugs of hot chocolate.
Trent Boult holds the record for most sixes by a number 11 with 24, coincidentally 11 more than Muralitharan in second place with 13. Shane Shillingford holds the single game record for a number 11 with five sixes in his 29 ball 53*, the fourth fastest fifty of all time.
Another New Zealander holds the record most sixes by a number 10. Neil Wagner has hit 17 sixes as a number 10. It should be noted that all but 4 of those sixes were hit in New Zealand, where some of the grounds are postage stamps compared to the vast expanses of grounds like the MCG, but that doesn't take anything away from the entertainment. Strangely 12 of Boult's 6s were hit outside of New Zealand, so perhaps it doesn't make that much of a difference.
The record for most sixes in an innings by a number 10 is held by yet another New Zealander and perhaps the most entertaining lower-order batsman in world cricket at the moment, Tim Southee. Southee crashed 9 sixes in a losing cause against England on debut and now sits 15th all time on the sixes list among all batsman.
A dying art
If there is one thing to come out of this joyful journey through the trials and tribulations of being a tail-ender it is that New Zealand is a conveyor belt for lower-order entertainment. Whether it's Messrs. Boult, Wagner and Southee hitting boundaries, or the incompetent Morrison and Allot holding out for hours on end, the Kiwis seem to have a penchant for tail-end batting.
Of course that is without mentioning probably the best and worst tail-ender of recent memory, Chris Martin. Of men to bat 100 innings in test cricket his average of 2.36 is comfortably the worst. He had a highest score of just 12* and never batted for more than 37 minutes. He had nine golden ducks in his career as well as being the only man to be run out without facing a ball twice. That second run out was Martin's last appearance in international cricket. Despite it being a farcical run out (something which is always enjoyable) it summed up his international batting career. It never lasted very long, it was very often filled with incompetence, but we couldn't take our eyes off it.
The standard of lower-order batting in international cricket continues to rise, with an ever increasing value placed on lower-order runs, but I for one hope that the likes of Chris Martin continue to find their place on the international stage. The sport would be a lot less fun without them.
tl;dr - I love tail-enders.

I'm interested in seeing who performed and who didn't, so I've compiled a few stats here and there with a bit of my own opinion and come up with this:
Pakistan
Abid Ali- made scores of 16, 20, 60, 1 and 42, averaging out to 27.4- A couple of starts, a scratchy half century and a very solid rearguard score of 42, all things considered, isn't too bad. Didn't impress but wasn't awful
Shan Masood- made scores of 156, 0, 1, 4 and 18, averaging out to 35.8- Apart from a brilliant century in the first test, he had a pretty torrid time and was done in by Anderson too often. Was not impressed and has definitely not done his reputation any favours (perhaps a little harsh)
Azhar Ali- made scores of 0, 18, 20, 141 and 31, averaging out to 52.50- Pretty poor by his standards in the first three innings but bounced back magnificently to score an unbeaten century and a gutsy 31 in the final test. Performed poorly as captain, but as a batsmen alone I thought he really pulled it back in the final test; ok overall
Babar Azam- made scores of 69, 5, 47, 11 and 63, averaging out to 48.75- The pick of the batsmen for me, two brilliant half centuries and a solid 47. His reputation has definitely increased as a result of this series and will only get better and better
Asad Shafiq- made scores of 7, 29, 5, 5 and 21, averaging out to 13.4- Dreadful. Should probably lose his place in the team and was definitely the worst Pakistani batsman; even when England were going through the motions with part time spin in the 3rd test when there was no pressure he failed to deliver
Mohammed Rizwan- made scores of 9, 27, 72 and 53, averaging out to 40.25- Very solid performance throughout the series from the wicketkeeping-batsman. Two solid half centuries, with the partnership with Azhar Ali standing out, to his name and I think his stock has for sure increased.
Fawad Alam- made scores of 0, 21 and 0 (not out), averaging out to 10.5- Hard to judge the man as he hasn't international test cricket for years and only had three innings, but failed to inspire in the small time he had. He definitely should remain in the Pakistani team though (partly for that glorious batting stance); reputation for the selectors has probably stayed the same, for the spectators its skyrocketed
England
Rory Burns- made scores of 4, 10, 0 and 6, averaging out to 4- Absolutely rubbish. Whilst I think we should definitely stick with Burns and he is the long term solution as an opener, if you judge him on this series alone it has been awful. Reputation has not really improved
Dom Sibley- made scores of 8, 36, 32 and 22, averaging out to 24.5- Made three solid starts but couldn't convert any of them into big scores. He's young and a proper old fashioned test opener so I'd like to think his reputation has improved
Joe Root- made scores of 14, 42, 9 and 29, averaging out to 31.3- Very subpar from the captain. Only one score of note and considering he's meant to be a part of the 'fab 4', it's been a poor series. Combined with some uninspiring captaining and it's not been great.
Zak Crawley- made scores of 53 and 267, averaging out to 160- What a series. Does anymore need to be said? Stand out performer by a country mile and the young lad should be a shoe in for the next test series
Ben Stokes- made scores of 0 and 9, averaging out to 4.5- Tough to judge him on only two innings especially considering how good he was against the West Indies and had to drop out for family/personal reasons.
Ollie Pope- made scores of 62, 7, 9 and 3, averaging out to 20.25- One very good innings, but dismissed 3 times in an ugly fashion (particularly in the third test). Knowing he's young and got potential it's tough to call it a bad series, but the numbers don't lie. Not particularly impressive but wasn't that bad
Jos Buttler- made scores of 38, 75, 0 (not out) and 152, averaging out to 88.3- Pretty average keeping, but has been brilliant with the bat this summer. A solid start, a fifty and a mammoth 152 is definitely enough to keep his place. Stock has for sure risen and will continue to do so if he keeps this form up.
Top performers
1) Zak Crawley
2) Jos Buttler
3) Babar Azam
Let me know what you guys think!