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.

Can't say I'm the greatest authority on being level headed and responsible on here, and I love a shit take just as much as anyone else - BUT there did seem to be a whole lot of them over the last few days. Some in regards to the actual match, and then of course some other things that happened.
So here's a (relatively) unbiased look at some I saw several times over:
Siraj is soft/too emotional
Crying during your national anthem is not a weird thing to do. Anyone who has watched the Olympics would know this.
India has ~20% of the world's population at this point. To be in the top 11 players in the nation's most popular sport is an unbelievable achievement. If you don't feel anything inside when the anthem plays and the realisation that you're about to play for your country sinks in... Who are you?
No one is born to play for a nation. You have to earn it. There is context behind these things.
What was said wasn't even that bad
Note the second word in the term 'casual racism'
They say worse things to minorities at NBA/NFL/NRL/AFL/Soccer etc
...That's bad.
That doesn't actually improve the situation. Not even the tiniest little bit.
I have said on here before that I find it very strange how fans of test cricket can be racist (perhaps a naive sentence) - given that test cricket is probably the only sport that has an elite team in every continent, who all routinely play each other. The Windies team covers both North and South America if anyone didn't know. And yes, Antarctica is basically Australia. Fight me.
In my mind it's very strange to follow a sport like this and still have some 1800s level opinions.
"The crowd is abusing me" is ripe for exploitation and time-wasting
The simple fact is that there are way better ways to waste time. I seem to remember Stuart Broad used to have an odd condition where he suddenly needed to remove both his shoes at very convenient moments. However, he never got the police involved and never had to get his nations board to make public statements.
If someone was found to do this purely for the sake of wasting time, their punishment wouldn't be small.

• Hopefully that covers some things. So to the actual game:

If Pujara batted faster, India could have won
Maybe? Very hard to tell.
The thing is, Pujara was never playing for the win. Pant was.
Pant and Pujara don't have to have the same gameplan. If Pant believes that he can win the test match, then good for him. But in a situation like this, Pujara has no reason to entertain something so insane.
Pujara was perfectly entitled to stonewall the whole day while Pant piled up runs. And if it got to a point where it looked like the win was actually doable, then Pujara might have changed his plan.
The most important part of the innings was that they don't lose. It's always better to only risk losing 1 wicket than 2. Pant can play at his own peril and if he fucks up then that's entirely his problem.
Paine's sledging went too far
Paine's chat is average at best. I don't know where this idea that he's a quick-witted mastermind even came from.
But to address the point - Paine lost that battle with Ashwin before he even replied.
In the middle of a Sydney test, when you can still win, and you're already chatting shit about the GABBA? Nah. Embarrassing. You've given up.
Ashwin replied and Paine calls him a dickhead. You lose again. You can't keep your cool because you've already accepted you can't win the game.
I would have no issue personally being called a dickhead if it came out of pure desperation. I would be surprised if it bothered Ashwin at all.
Wade throwing the ball at the batsmen was not on
Yeah maybe. It's hard to really have a strong opinion on. Collecting the ball and instantly throwing it at the stumps happens a lot. Even if the batsman never leaves their crease.
Simon Jones did it to Matt Hayden once, and hit him. Why did Jones throw it? Fuck I don't know, it's just something you do sometimes.
Wade didn't exactly throw the ball hard. If it was intentional, it wasn't harmful. If it wasn't intentional, it was pretty stupid to throw the ball at him in the first place. If the umpires took issue with it, Wade would have been in trouble. There's rules against these things.
If he gets fined, fair. If not, also fair.
Smith messing up the crease was not on
I agree. If I am batting, the crease is my personal space. Please don't touch it.
Lots of people saying that Smith can hardly do anything to the footmarks on a day 5 pitch - which is true - but that's not the point. If I'm batting and you're not, don't touch my fucking footmarks. They are mine.
Unless you're literally picking up the ball from the footmarks, there's no real reason a fielder should ever be standing in that zone.
I often use a blade of grass for my guard marker. I stand outside leg so I know no one else will stand on it. I would be seriously pissed off if someone came and just kicked it away for no reason.
On top of that - there are rules against causing 'avoidable' damage to the wicket.
Unless you're batting, don't ever touch the crease.
DRS woes
If you agree to play a game by a particular set of rules, then guess what? It's kind of tough shit when those rules go against you. That's kind of how life works.
Getting angry at a computer projection is just.... Well think about it for a second.
Vihari and Ashwin should have taken more runs when they were available
Why? I would argue that they took way more runs than they needed to. I don't know why they ever ran at all.
Vihari was injured. I've batted with a pulled hamstring before - there's no shot you can play that doesn't stretch it. It's horrible. The fact that he could bat at all is amazing.
There is no obligation for the players to actually entertain the fans. The players can be as boring as they like.
Jadeja shouldn't have been ready to come out and risk further injury
Well yes, but try telling a professional sportsman not to go back out and keep playing. It really doesn't work that way.
"[INSERT PLAYER HERE] is shit"
I have addressed this before. There's not a single person that has ever played test cricket who has been shit at the sport. Yes, you can be bad in a certain context - Rohit averaging 26 away from home for example. Or Wade averaging 30 as a full time batsman. But I would give my life to be able to average 30 in test. Fuck I can't even average 30 in my local 4th grade most years. My criticisms of these men are weak at best.
If you still wanted to blame someone, it would be the selectors. Not the players. Joe Burns getting selected was sad for me. If you're truly out of form, you're fucked. He hadn't scored a run in months, and then got selected anyway. It's not really like a player can just decline a selection - you'll never play again if you do.
And surprise surprise, we confirmed that yep, he's still definitely out of form. Bye bye Joe. Hope you enjoyed the experience on worldwide TV.
No one is bad on purpose. If they were, that's called match fixing and is illegal.

• And some final words:

These are just regular men. They happen to be very good at a sport. So good in fact that other people willingly pay to watch them be that good.
That's all cricket really is. Some of the fans are more serious about it than the players themselves.
You don't need to do that.

Welcome to a new, deeply thoughtful, potentially erotic and effervescently (I just learnt that word, fuck you) exciting new take on player performances, brought to you by your favourite armchair critic and occasional shitposter, me.
After each of the England versus India games I'll be posting a quick breakdown of each England player's performance, and rating them out of ten. You may think "hold on Maffy, this sounds suspiciously similar to basically every other player rating thread ever... Like, the exact same. In fact who even are you? Didn't you do my nan's guttering last week?". Well that's where you are wrong ladies and genitalmen, because those other threads don't have my boyish charm and self deprecating humour. Though, I potentially did your nan's guttering last week, dependent on where she lives.
So if you've made it this far you probably DO want to hear my ratings. Or in fact you've decided you want to read to the end to make sure it wasn't just a meme. Well, it isn't. It's pure as Arctic snow and it's right here, right now. Get ready for the majesty of Maffy's Man Marks, episode 1.

A note before we begin:

A lot of the comments have been centered around me giving Joe a 9, and not a 9.5 or 10. The reason is thus:
1) Every rating defines, based on a universe of outcomes, how close to the greatest innings of all time (10) that player's performance was. Not "how good they did based on what they could achieve", how close to perfect they were.
2) It is a transitive rating system. Transitivity is a fundamental axiom of numbers, which means if A>B, and B>C, then A>C. It follows for equality too, A=B, B=C, then A=C.
3) To assert that Joe got a 10 would mean I had to concede that his performance was as good as any in history, which in my opinion is false. His performance was not as good as Laxman's 281, arguably the greatest test innings ever along with a few others... And even then, someone could beat those.
4) So, how can I maintain transitivity and give him a 10? A 10 is not "really really good", a 9 is "really really good", which is what Joe got.
So if you think he "deserved a 10" then fair enough, sure... But you aren't using transitivity in that case, and if you're gonna argue with me about it then you're arguing using different rules... Which is just a waste of everyone's time.
...
Rory Burns aka Captain Jack Sparrow - 5.5
Despite his arguably disastrous hair he came out in fine form on day 1, playing some lovely deft touches that we all now associate with this pleasing moustachio'd man from Epsom. Though, on about 30 he decided against all sanity and reason, with the team on 70 and cruising towards an excellent opening stand to play a reverse swoosh. Stupid shot to end a great return to the team. He took a couple catches, and then got a good ball in the second innings, but we got a fun new statistic out of his wicket so who cares.
Dom Fridgely - 8
The man who people were calling to be dropped only 3 innings into a 6 test winter season has bounced back healthily in his last two games, reminding us all of the tremendous white good he is and that he can absorb pressure better than a competition-standard trampoline under the invitees of a fat kid's 8th birthday party. He played some great shots, and built the platform England subsequently stormed away on. Second innings again, like Rory he fell to a good ball but luckily bought himself plenty of goodwill with his first innings showing.
Dan Lawrence - 4
Unfortunately for Dan, who subbed in at the last minute after Zak Crawley apparently sat down too fast into his armchair, the momentum shattering his wrist on impact (bear in mind he was around 7 and a half feet in the air given he was stood up), he had a very quiet showing. Not a single catch and only 18 runs, with both dismissals alarmingly similar to each other - falling over the inswinger. Hopefully if he doesn't go well next game (assuming Crawley comes back in at 3 for the 3rd test) it won't damage his confidence too much, though if it does he won't be any different to the other 300 batsman we've tried there.
Root 66 - 9
Another double tonne, a quickfire 40 and two catches. This guy is in form that most can only dream of, and when I say that I mean literally because the majority of England fans will have slept through the bulk of his runscoring. They will genuinely have been asleep, cuddling up to teddy dreaming of Joe Root's wonderful form and his glimmering blue eyes... So shiny.
Stokesy - 8
Resident ginger Ben Stokes played a superb hand in this game - a brutal first innings which ended about 50 shy of what I would have liked, backed up by England's most economical figures in the first innings, as well as three catches and the all important wicket of Virat in the second innings, who looked justifiably annoyed at getting out to a bloke who probably argues with Taxi drivers if, after saying "anywhere here will do mate", the price of the fare goes up 20p as they pull in.
Ollie Pope (OP) - 6.5
A so-so return to the team for Ollie Pollie, who looked very scratchy in his first innings. He found fluency in the second, though like Rory decided getting out was definitely the best way of securing runs for his team, and decided to execute said strategy post-haste. Maybe 6.5 is a bit harsh given how generous I've been with the other players, but he just seemed a bit underwhelming given how talented we know he actually is. No problem, I'm sure he'll have a good showing at some point in this series. I really want him to average well over 40 in his test career, so let's get hustling on those numbers, OP (hey that's me too!).
JosButtler TM - 7
A good ship-steadying role in both innings played by one of the most destructive batsmen in world cricket. He kept nicely, and overall can leave this winter sequence of tours with his head held high. He will be, we hope, replaced by Lord Foakes who is inevitably going to suck given all the hype we keep pumping him with, but overall Buttler can be pleased with his performance I'd say. His wicket in the second innings looked a little reckless but he was clearly getting frustrated, and in reality was just soaking up deliveries so did the right thing trying to send Nadeem into the stands.
Dom "the Bess of all time" Bess - 8
How long before Bessy is referred to as a bowling all-rounder by the way? He looks very comfortable bat-in hand, and scored some gutsy runs in both innings, backed up by 4 wickets in the first half of the game and the wicket of the irritatingly good Washington Sundar in the second. He also now plays for Yorkshire, which naturally gives him a +0.5 to his rating, and anyone that doesn't like that can just fuck off.
Jof - 7
Decent game for Jof, picking up Sharma and Gill early in the first innings with some economical bowling throughout. He didn't look massively threatening in the second innings, though in his defence this is not his kind of wicket at all and he worked hard with what he had. His batting continues to entertain though, a guy with a first class average of 24 and 6 fifties who in test matches literally looks like the bat weighs 14 stone and his feet have been glued to the track using industrial-strength grouting adhesive.
"The Nut" Jack Leach - 7.5
Leachy with a soul-crushing pounding from Pant in the first innings bounced back to dismiss Sharma, Pujara, Ashwin and Nadeem, giving everyone a reminder of his capabilities both physically with ball-in-hand and mentally. A lovely little cameo in the first innings also gave Bess the support to add on some healthy runs. He seems to improve every innings, and I hope he gets a good run in the squad.
OOOOOOOH JIMMY JIMMY Anderson - 8
The guy is 38 and just bowled one of the best overs I've ever seen, splattering the dangerously in-form Shubman Gill, and scuppering Rahane who can be annoyingly resilient given the chance (though, not currently if you ask Indian fans). Going at 1.5 an over with 3 wickets in the second innings, and 17 overs backed by 2 wickets and 5 maidens in the first innings, Jimmy is just an icon of the modern game and I will get his face tattooed on my balls when he retires. If you don't believe me, fight me.
That's all folks. I would also do India's but I truly, truly don't care about them. No, I joke - but it is a lot of effort and I feel like by the time people reach the end of this alone they will be bored already and tired of my essentially recycling-quality witticisms. For the next edition, if there is demand, I'll do India too.
Well, thank you for stopping by and have a good day all you pomms, bhenchods, betichods, cunts, kiwis, braifolk, members of the Caribbean collective, Bangbros and anyone I've missed. Love and peace, and as always...

^{Epstein didn't kill himself}

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.

I know Travis Head has made a reputation as the guy who throws away his wicket after getting set in the 30s and 40s. However, I was a little surprised to see him dropped altogether. I know it is disappointing when he doesn't get the big scores, but he gets settled in, which most cricketers would agree is the most important part of playing a long innings. Surely, the coaches can work with him a little more and help him out. After all, he's played only 19 tests since he made his debut in 2018.
I'll take the example of Steve Waugh After 22 Test Matches, Waugh scored about 7 half centuries at an average of 27.5
Meanwhile, after 19 Tests, Travis has scored 7 half centuries and 2 centuries at an average of 39.5
In the first 3 years of Intl cricket, Waugh averaged 30. In his 4th year, he averaged 86 In his 5th and 6th year, he averaged 18.5
Only after that, Waugh as the batsman we know enters the arena and starts scoring those big scores.
Travis has played 3 years, and averages 33.9 , 49.5 and 18 in each of those years.
If you look at both of their averages by year, you'll see that when they get opportunities to play more matches, they have the chance to get those big hundreds and improve their average
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerYears.asp?PlayerID=4386
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/Players/PlayerYears.asp?PlayerID=1873
Again I understand that it is disappointing that Head throws away his starts more often times than not. But then, isn't it easy for the coaches to work with a guy who already gets those starts, and just teach him how to convert them better, than to find a new guy altogether and hope that he gets the starts AND the big scores.
Basically my point is Travis shouldn't be dropped already, especially when he has played less than 20 matches, and already averages about 40, with centuries against NZ and SL (and 4 half centuries) in 2019 alone.
The guy clearly has the potential, but I'm worried that because of this reputation, his talent won't be fully unveiled on the world stage.
I mean, Australia's batting is already facing some problems, so why not go with the young bloke who shows so much potential, than with someone like Wade, who does the same thing as Travis does (throw away the starts ; no fifty plus scores in 13 innings) and is a lot older and probably does not have too much Test cricket left. No offense to Wade :)
What do you guys think?

You may recognise me from my English Football series. I am still working on this, but a mix of being busy IRL and writer's block have precluded a new instalment. I hope to get the drama juices flowing with another sporting mishap and another football instalment up at some point this week
For now, we take a trip back to the 1930s and discuss the England cricket team's controversial 'Bodyline Tour' of Australia
Background
It is often something of a national joke that the British are excellent inventors but poor innovators. They often invent a new concept before being promptly overtaken by the rest of the world in it. The Industrial Revolution and the computer as we know it both owe their origins to the British, but Britain was the first major economy to suffer post-industrial decline, and there has never been a major British computing giant in the vein of Microsoft.
Sport is no different. British national teams dominate none of the three classic team sports codified and spread across the world during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
When an Australian cricket team toured England in 1882 and inflicted a shock defeat against England at the Oval in London, a satirical obituary printed in the papers mourned the 'death of English cricket' and that the ashes would be cremated and taken to Australia. This is the genesis of international cricket's second most intense rivalry and the reason that full Test series between England and Australia are known as 'The Ashes'.
After the First World War Australia ran rampant in international cricket. From 1918 to 1925, England mustered just one win out of fifteen tests over three five-test tours against Australia. Things picked up a little after 1925 and the passing of a 'golden generation' of Australian crickets while England saw an uptick in talent, but one man would change all that and tip the balance back in Australia's favour.
Enter the GOAT
If you were forming a team of the best 11 cricketers of all time covering all positions, to include Sir Don Bradman would be a no-brainer. Generally considered the greatest batsman of all time with a career batting average of 99.94 runs (for reference, the best batsmen in contemporary Test cricket would average about 60-65) and quite possibly the greatest Australian sportsman to ever represent his country in any sport, the Don absolutely changed things.
Australia toured England in 1930 and were widely expected to get a drubbing from England owing to their side's inexperience compared to the increasingly ascendant English side.
This isn't what happened.
In the Third Test at Headingley in Leeds Don scored 309 runs in a single day, a feat unsurpassed to this day. Also unsurpassed is his record of 974 runs over a standard five-Test series.
At the Fourth Test at the Oval in London English players and commentators noticed that Don struggled to play against 'bouncers', fast balls pitched short in order to bounce fairly high towards the batsman. I'll give a rundown of bowling mechanics later, but suffice it to say that this information would become critical later.
Australia surprised all by winning the series 2-1 and the shy and self-effacing Don was suddenly thrust into the limelight of an adoring Australian public. Don also thrust himself into the attentions of those in England who sought to avenge the defeat by winning the next English tour of Australia.
Enter Douglas Jardine
The cricket administrator 'Plum' Warner had noticed Don's struggles against aggressive fast bowling at the Oval, and he rapidly put himself to work planning on how to neutralise Don Bradman when England toured Australia in 1932-3, for surely only then could the Ashes be reclaimed.
He saw to Douglas Jardine being appointed captain of the England side in 1931 as a prelude to the tour. Jardine was amenable to Warner's plans and strongly disliked Australians. In the 1928-9 tour he received a good amount of 'banter' from Australian supporters owing to his haughty demeanour and habit of playing while wearing his Oxford University cap, the latter was hardly rare at the time amongst those entitled to one, but Jardine wore one while fielding which was a little strange. He also fielded out on the boundary, near the spectators, and proved an awkward outfielder which further encouraged mockery from Australian supporters. Rather than shrug it off or endear himself to the home crowd by giving a little back, he tended to draw in on himself and criticise what he saw as uneducated and lower class Australians.
A Plan Assembles
Jardine arranged to meet the two fast bowlers from Nottinghamshire (English professional cricket was and is organised on counties) Harold Larwood and William Voce. Nottinghamshire had been a dominant side in the late 1920s with their fast bowling, and Jardine saw in them a solution to his Don problem.
Remembering Don's discomfort against high-pitching balls at the Oval in 1930 and believing Don Bradman to be physically lacking in courage and inclined to shirk against aggressive bowling, Jardine asked the two men if they could repeat this style of bowling and do so accurately. They believed they could, and after a trial in the domestic competitions yielded mixed results, the England team departed for Australia in late 1932 eager to reclaim the Ashes with their secret weapon.
The Mechanics of Bodyline
I'll very briefly try and explain what we mean by 'Bodyline'. Essentially in cricket the bowler typically tries to hit three wooden stumps (called the wicket) with his delivery. The batsman generally faces the bowler side-on and stands slightly to one side of the wicket, meaning that a ball aimed at the wicket is generally unlikely to hit the batsman. When we talk about pitch we talk about how the bowler makes the ball bounce. A cricket delivery nearly always involves the ball bouncing at some point between the bowler and the wicket. The earlier (or shorter) that the ball bounces, the higher it will be when it comes to the batsman. This is an important part of cricketing strategy as different bowling styles suit different circumstances and pitches.
Jardine essentially asked Larwood and Voce to bowl leg-side (that is at the side of the wicket the batsman stands on) and pitch it short, meaning the balls comes directly at the batsman and at an intimidatingly high angle.
The batsman's reflex move, if he does not duck, is to use his bat as a shield and try and push the ball away, this puts it straight towards fielders on his leg-side who will be close.
On this diagram you may notice the 'Slips'. They are close-in fielders used when bowling aggressively for close catches. The slips are shown here on the 'off' side, opposite the batsman, but in 1932 they could line up like this directly behind the batsman's leg in order to take catches from the strokes he makes to defend himself from high balls.
A final major factor is the pitch. Australian pitches have more 'bounce' than English ones owing to generally being drier, making a tactic reliant on short-pitching to generate high balls more extreme in Australia than England.
Arrival in Australia
Jardine came to Australia with a score to settle, claiming from the off he had not come 6,000 miles to 'make friends'. The Australian press had noted his selection of an unprecedented four fast bowlers as being an obvious retort to Don Bradman's genius with the bat, and such comments did little to defuse what was already becoming a contentious tour.
In the matches before the main Test series against Australia against various Australian sides such as New South Wales England dabbled a little with Bodyline bowling but did not seriously employ it. It was enough to indicate the direction that Jardine had gone with his tactical choices and initially a substantial section of the Australian cricketing world accepted that England had merely adopted long-standing theories around fast bowling which had been common enough in the English domestic game.
The Early Tests
Don Bradman didn't play in the first test in Sydney. He was embroiled in a dispute with the Australian cricketing authorities about his writing a newspaper column, although Jardine appeared convinced that he had simply bottled it or had a mental breakdown.
The First Test was a comfortable win for England as Jardine's methods bore fruit. Larwood took ten wickets and a strong English batting performance saw England win essentially with an innings to spare.
Nonetheless, the early seeds of the forthcoming shitstorm were apparent. One of Jardine's fast bowlers, Gubby Allen, accepted using aggressive fielding positions but refused to bowl directly at Australian batsmen. An Indian princeling, the Nawab of Pataudi, on the English side (who would later go onto captain the Indian team, making him one of few Test cricketers to represent two countries) refused to field in an aggressive position on the batsman's leg side, to which Jardine remarked that 'His Highness is a conscientious objector' and largely removed him from the side for the rest of the series. Australian cricket remained split, with many still seeing Bodyline as a sharp but lawful practise.
The Second Test in Melbourne saw Don return. True to form, he scored a century, while a disastrous English batting performance granted the match to Australia. Jardine, a batsman, in particular had a bad game. Normally icy and virtually emotionless on the pitch, he did a 'war dance' when Don was surprisingly bowled out early in the first innings, showing perhaps his sheer desire to 'get one over' on the Australians.
Adelaide
England would win the Third Test in Adelaide, but at the cost of potentially ending the tour and causing a huge rift.
On the second day a Larwood ball hit the Australian captain, Bill Woodfull. The English fielders crowding around the batsman's position gathered around Woodfull to check on him, while Jardine called out 'well bowled, Harold!' in earshot of a now-irate Australian crowd. 'Sledging', the practise of playing mind-games against a batsman, was nothing new in cricket, and Jardine apparently intended to unnerve Don, who was the non-facing batsman and so stood near to him, but he succeeded only in appalling Woodfull and the Australian supporters.
Woodfull for his part gained respect for not retaliating during this game and acting perhaps more magnanimously towards the English players than most people would.
But it gets worse.
Later that day, 'Plum' Warner went to the Australian dressing room to visit Woodfull and apologise in person. Warner had sought to make Jardine captain, but he had likely underestimated Jardine's single-minded desire to defeat Australia by any means. Woodfull's reply to Warner was leaked to the press, to the fury of all involved and his quote would go down in cricketing history

I don't want to see you, Mr Warner. There are two teams out there. One is trying to play cricket and the other is not

Warner tried to tell Jardine about this, who appeared unrepentant.
Could it get even worse?
Absolutely.
The following day another Larwood ball struck an Australian player. Bert Oldfield was knocked unconscious and suffered a fractured skull in an era where cricket helmets were unheard of but the ball was the same wood and leather as today. The ball which struck Oldfield was a misplaced 'bouncer' rather than a true bodyline ball, but it became symbolic of the highly aggressive bowling which Larwood was rapidly gaining notoriety for.
You can see Oldfield falling to the right in this picture
Diplomacy
Things escalated, as at the end of the fourth day the Australian cricket authorities warned their English counterparts of the diplomatic damage being done to the otherwise close relationships between Britain and Australia, which was self-governing in nearly all respects but not quite wholly independent. Their telegram directly accused the English team of unsportsmanlike behaviour contrary to the spirit of cricket.
After a reply from England, the Australian authorities requested that the series continue but that 'bodyline' bowling would be considered by the authorities afterwards. The English authorities now seemed those most inclined to end the series, stating they would only play if the Australians retracted the 'unsportsmanlike' accusation.
At this point, the actual governments got involved.
Neither the British nor Australian governments wished to see relations damaged over cricket and both sought to defuse the situation. Eventually the Australian cricket authorities retracted the accusation but only after the Prime Minister of Australia intervened, as he did not wish to risk a public boycott of Australian goods in Britain for an economy still heavily reliant on the British export market.
The Series Winds Down
Bill Voce missed the Fourth Test in Brisbane and his replacement with a spin-bowler (ie a style of bowling by definition incapable of 'bodyline') indicated a shift away from the pure dedication to this approach. Larwood was now the only bowler still committed to bodyline bowling, but he appeared to dip in form after the earlier tests and was less effective.
England won this match and the final Test in Sydney, but without resorting to the methods employed in the earlier games.
Legacy
Relations between Britain and Australia did weaken, with some anecdotal evidence of reduced trade and antipathy towards Britons in Australia and Australians in Britain existing during the mid-1930s.
Bodyline became more widely used for a brief period after the tour in England as Larwood and Voce continued to ply their trade at home. The method saw heavy employment by both sides when a team from the West Indies toured England in 1933, and it did turn English opinion against it. In the words of Wisden, the main cricketing publisher

Most of those watching it for the first time must have come to the conclusion that, while strictly within the law, it was not nice.

In 1935 the laws of cricket changed. It was now forbidden to directly bowl at a batsman, and the umpire had discretion to forbid it on the pitch. A later law in 1957 altered fielding arrangements (banning more than two fielders being in the quadrant behind the batsman on his leg side) which effectively prevented pure bodyline from happening.
That being said, the concept of intimidatory high-pitched bowling has remained. There are limits on how many balls can be bowled in this way, but it isn't banned. In the era of mandatory helmets in the professional game and the proliferation of other protective equipment against fast bowlers it is a part of modern cricket to an extent which would doubtless shock both the English and Australians of 1932-3.
Bodyline didn't stop Don Bradman. He was a young man in 1932 and his greatest career highlights were ahead of him as he attained truly unbeatable batting averages for Australia. Following a hiatus in the Second World War, he captained Australia on a triumphant 'Invincible' tour of England in 1948.
What of Jardine, Larwood, and Voce? Larwood and Voce remain heroes for Nottinghamshire cricket, having a stand named after them at Trent Bridge in Nottingham, a major ground which generally sees an Ashes Test when Australia tours England.
Bill Voce and Harold Larwood did not have their reputations unduly damaged by bodyline. They were both working class players from Nottinghamshire (Larwood an ex-miner, and Voce from a mining town), then a major coal mining county in the Midlands, in contrast to Jardine's more elite background. It became generally accepted they had merely done Jardine's bidding. Bill Voce had a largely unremarkable career after 1933 and had never committed as strongly to bodyline as Larwood had.
Larwood was largely unrepentant. He had been the most prominent of the bodyliners and had cold relations with Don Bradman. As an old man he claimed he never bowled at a batsman's head, but he would sometimes aim for the chest or legs.
Ironically Larwood moved to Australia after the Second World War, joining thousands of Britons who benefited from subsidised emigration to Australia. He received a warm welcome from both Australian cricket and the public, although his broad Nottinghamshire drawl caused some issues in understanding apparently. He occasionally received abuse when the topic came up in the media, but generally lived quietly in Australia with a few slightly cantankerous media appearances in the 1970s to criticise the proliferation of protective equipment for batsmen and to criticise the then-England star all-rounder Sir Ian Botham. When he received a medal for lifetime service to cricket in 1993, an Australian newspaper expressed the class angle quite bluntly.

At last the ruling classes honour the man who carried the can for their savage arrogance

Jardine for many is the villain of this piece. He represents an elite and classist attitude towards the more egalitarian Australians, whom he nursed a strong distaste for. As above, Australian opinion would later forgive working class English players who bowled bodyline, but such forgiveness did not come to Jardine. Nonetheless, he was a complex figure who above all had a desire to win which went beyond the norms of sporting decency in his time. He left cricket in 1935, disillusioned with negative press and the phasing out of bodyline. The English cricket establishment was all too happy to blame the scandal on him, and his name has gone down in cricketing infamy, deservedly or not.

Let's be honest, the ICC's teams of the decade was a wee bit rubbish. Plenty have mentioned this on here, discussing it from a number of fronts. Personally, the fact that they picked a 'keeper' who didn't keep once in the decade says it all, but I figured I'd go over another way of picking such a team, just starting from a method and running with it.
Now, before I go any further, I would add that personally, the decade ended at the end of 2019. This is entirely a point about conventions, but one I feel should be noted before moving on to analyse this. I note this, in part, because I already gave my team of the decade last year, though by a slightly different method. So, what are these conventions? Well, as most would know, the Gregorian Calendar starts form 1 AD, so when noting centuries, they start from a year ending with 1, and end with a year ending 0, eg:

• 1st Century: 1 - 100
• 2nd Century: 101-200
• 19th Century: 1801-1900
• 20th Century: 1901-2000
• 21st Century: 2001-2100

It was also the point of contention for a bunch of people, who didn't like parties, who questioned whether 31 December 1999 was end the of the Millennium or not. Now, many would say 'who cares', and personally I agree, it's just a point about convention. That brings us perfectly to the point of decades though. There are two standard conventions:
1st: From 0-9, with decades labelled as 'the eighties' or '80s', the nineties' or '90s', etc. This aligns with how the decades are written, ie all years that start with an 8 are the 80s.
2nd: From 1-10, with decades labelled as '9th decade of the 20th century', '10th decade of the 20th century', etc. This aligns with how centuries are labelled.
Now, the second is very uncommon, and research on usage in the English speaking World tends to show that the first is overwhelmingly more common. Ask yourself, have you heard of 90s fashion, or fashion from the 10th decade? If you're in the later group, congrats, the ICC agrees with you.
Again, irrelevant, but to me it just seems odd to label the end of the decade as being now, but hey, the ICC can go against conventions if they wish. It's not really a mistake by them, but it really does set the stage for what they did.
Now, looking deeper, their convention is weirder than it first seems. The ICC lists Smith as having 7,040 runs in 69 Tests, and Kohli as having 20,396 in all international cricket. Now, the Smith figure confirms the December tests are not included, and this is also shown in the Kohli figure, which should be 20,781. The figure appears to be limited to prior to the current season, ie 2020/21, but starts with the beginning of 2011 as a year, not the 2010/11 season or the 2011. This means they've used a weird mixed convention, likely so they had time to consider things. Still, this is quite frankly just ridiculous, and I will be using figure current up to the end of the Test between New Zealand and Pakistan. This does mean that the period used by me is slightly different to the ICC's, but the ICC's period is just so silly that I won't be using it.
Anyhow, into methodology. I'll be using similar methods to my previous post. You can read that if you want a full rundown, but now the range is 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2020 (there is no international cricket tomorrow). The team will be, as before:

• 5 × Batsmen
• 1 × Allrounder
• 1 × Wicketkeeper batsman†
• 4 × Bowlers

There will be no preference towards bowling or batting allrounders, nor will there be a preference to style of bowling.
Unlike last time, I will not be providing a breakdown by number and fraction of matches played, etc, instead opting for one team, ICC style. The only requirement for consideration is at least 10 Tests played, with the issue of small sample size dealt with more directly. To achieve this, I'll be using a similar manner to this post, where uncertainty in averages will be considered, as well as what the 'average player' achieves. This will gives us a kind of 'Bayesian rating', which in effect tells us the rating for that skill that we can be confident of, given the amount of data we have. That is, we'll be using Bayesian inference to convert the average we have, to the certainty given by the sample size, to see how good we can be confident they are. The 'average player' will be the average player for that skill set, this being batting in the top 6 for batters, and top 4 for bowlers, with an additional requirement of bowling at least 1 innings per match. All roles for batting and bowling are collapsed into one for the calculations themselves, ie openers, number 3, all rounder batting etc will all use the same average as part of the prior. All rounders and wicket keepers will follow their own ratings, and this will be discussed later.
What's more, I'll 'cheat' a bit with the uncertainties. For batsmen, it will be their batting average divided by the square root of dismissals. This works as the standard deviation of batting scores is approximately the average (within about 5-10% for virtually all players with 40+ innings); the impact of this difference is very small in almost all cases. For bowlers, the same will be done for average, while the uncertainty for WPM is estimated from 0.6×WPM divided by the square root of wickets taken. This is being used for keeping dismissals per match as well. This works about as well as the estimate for uncertainty of averages, though the reasons why this is the case is unknown to me at this time. Figuring out the reasons why might be an interesting investigation in and of itself, though I'd suspect more niche.
In terms of actual ratings, for batsmen, they will be rated by batting average, and selection will be broken into several groups, including openers, the number 3, and 2 middle order batsmen. Openers will only be compared in terms of statistics while opening, with the same going for the number 3. The other two positions will consider batting across any and all positions, ie openers and number 3 are deemed specialists, while 4-5 are not.
For bowlers, I'll be using a rating based on two metrics, the bowling average and wickets per match. That is, bowlers will be valued for both their contribution to wicket taking, and taking wickets cheaply. This is combined with a geometric mean of WPM and 1/average, and in effect includes economy and SR as part of the definition. Bowlers will be selected as either seamers or spinners, and the best 3 seamers and best spinner will be selected for the side.
As to allrounders, the geometric mean of batting and bowling ratings will be used, and the best allrounder by this will be added to the side. In order to generate a usable definition of the 'average allrounder', statistics only from players who have batted in the top 8 in at least 10 matches, and bowling at least 1 innings per match played, will be considered. This said, their full records are considered the ratings themselves.
For wicket keepers, I'll be using the disgusting metric from this post, just so it's not purely about batting average. This is just the geometric mean of batting average and dismissals per match. It's sickening, but it will do for our purposes, and will at least give some value to keeping, though biased by the kinds of dismissals their team gets. The 'average player' used here will be the average of all eligible wicket keepers, this will smooth out players who dominate, or struggle, with the bat to some extent.
The final side will be put in order of batting average, highest to lowest, excluding the specialist positions of openers and number 3. Players will also be picked for roles in the following order:

1. Wicket Keepers
2. All Rounder
3. Opener
4. Number 3
5. Top Order Batsman
6. Bowler

ie if a player would make it on their batting or bowling alone, they will still go in as an allrounder first. The same with batsmen as keepers.
Anyhow, below are the results, top 10 for each role:

Openers

Player	Mat	Inns	Runs	Ave	B-Ave
DA Warner (AUS)	84	152	7205	49.69	47.60
AN Cook (ENG)	97	176	7482	44.54	43.61
Azhar Ali (PAK)	20	37	1556	45.76	42.03
CJL Rogers (AUS)	24	46	1996	44.36	41.81
TWM Latham (NZ)	54	94	3867	42.97	41.78
MA Agarwal (INDIA)	13	21	1005	47.86	41.67
CH Gayle (WI)	12	23	841	46.72	40.89
GC Smith (SA)	27	48	1843	41.89	40.25
D Elgar (SA)	56	100	3757	40.40	39.77
S Dhawan (INDIA)	34	58	2315	40.61	39.63

So, Warner and Cook are the picks here, and fairly decisively, as would be expected.

Number 3

Player	Match	Inns	Runs	Ave	B-Ave
KC Sangakkara (SL)	39	71	4068	61.64	51.84
KS Williamson (NZ)	72	124	6283	56.10	51.44
SPD Smith (AUS)	17	29	1744	67.08	46.99
CA Pujara (INDIA)	72	115	5314	48.31	46.06
HM Amla (SA)	61	100	4503	48.42	45.82
M Labuschagne (AUS)	10	17	1203	70.76	44.56
Azhar Ali (PAK)	56	95	4000	43.96	42.54
GS Ballance (ENG)	16	29	1254	46.44	41.80
IR Bell (ENG)	11	15	742	53.00	41.65
R Dravid (INDIA)	13	24	943	42.86	39.83

Williamson narrowly misses out to Sangakkara here, though given how good he was at 3, it's understandable. Smith sneakily into third is a surprise to me, but honestly, the field is pretty weak outside Sangakkara and Williamson.

Other Top Order

Player	Mat	Inns	Runs	Average	B-Ave
SPD Smith (AUS)	71	127	7050	64.09	56.00
KC Sangakkara (SL)	40	77	4156	57.72	50.52
V Kohli (INDIA)	87	147	7318	53.42	50.24
KS Williamson (NZ)	79	138	6665	53.32	49.93
S Chanderpaul (WI)	35	61	2804	60.96	49.40
Younis Khan (PAK)	53	97	4659	54.17	49.32
AB de Villiers (SA)	49	80	4063	54.17	48.83
MJ Clarke (AUS)	47	86	3946	51.92	47.57
DA Warner (AUS)	84	155	7244	48.95	47.05
Misbah-ul-Haq (PAK)	54	95	3994	49.93	46.48

So, Smith in comfortably, and Virat joins him with Sangakkara already in at 3. Williamson again misses out, and narrowly as before.

All Rounder

Player	Mat	Bat-A	WPM	Bowl-A	Rating	AllRond	B-AllRond
R Ashwin (INDIA)	73	27.48	5.137	25.22	0.4513	3.521	3.034
RA Jadeja (INDIA)	50	35.67	4.320	24.49	0.4200	3.871	2.996
Shakib Al Hasan (BDESH)	35	44.72	3.857	30.57	0.3552	3.985	2.977
BA Stokes (ENG)	67	37.85	2.358	31.41	0.2740	3.220	2.898
VD Philander (SA)	64	24.04	3.500	22.32	0.3960	3.085	2.814
JO Holder (WI)	45	32.05	2.578	27.95	0.3037	3.120	2.783
MA Starc (AUS)	59	22.16	4.271	26.75	0.3996	2.976	2.760
MM Ali (ENG)	60	28.98	3.017	36.60	0.2871	2.884	2.727
MG Johnson (AUS)	32	22.47	4.250	27.07	0.3963	2.984	2.700
CR Woakes (ENG)	38	27.52	2.947	29.30	0.3171	2.954	2.698

Lack of cricket over the period costs Shakib here, and honestly, I'd give it to Jadeja over Ashwin personally, but Ashwin it is. Stokes' rise in the last few years is notable however, but he remains some way behind the big 3 here. For those who demand a 4th seamer, he'd be the pick.

Wicket Keeper

Player	Mat	Inns	Ave	Dis	DPM	Rating	B-Rating
Q de Kock (SA)	46	77	40.31	206	4.478	13.435	11.98
AB de Villiers (SA)	21	33	63.06	83	3.952	15.788	11.80
BJ Watling (NZ)	64	97	40.17	249	3.891	12.501	11.69
JM Bairstow (ENG)	48	85	37.85	181	3.771	11.947	11.34
RR Pant (INDIA)	14	23	38.32	65	4.643	13.338	11.18
MJ Prior (ENG)	40	63	39.04	142	3.550	11.772	11.15
TD Paine (AUS)	29	45	31.39	134	4.621	12.043	11.13
Sarfaraz Ahmed (PAK)	48	84	37.34	163	3.396	11.260	10.95
LD Chandimal (SL)	24	43	41.08	72	3.000	11.101	10.77
MS Dhoni (INDIA)	37	63	34.84	126	3.405	10.892	10.72

So, the top three really stand out. AB's excellent cameo as a keeper stands out, but is too few matches to have high certainty. There's no surprise about the other two, but ultimately BJ's handy work this decade isn't enough to finish de Kock off, who is ultimately the pick here.

Seamers

Player	Mat	W	WPM	Ave	Rating	Bayes
PJ Cummins (AUS)	32	153	4.781	21.52	0.4714	0.4133
K Rabada (SA)	43	197	4.581	22.96	0.4467	0.4091
DW Steyn (SA)	48	207	4.313	22.56	0.4373	0.4056
JM Anderson (ENG)	100	395	3.950	24.33	0.4029	0.3918
JJ Bumrah (INDIA)	16	76	4.750	20.68	0.4792	0.3900
N Wagner (NZ)	51	219	4.294	26.33	0.4039	0.3848
MA Starc (AUS)	59	252	4.271	26.75	0.3996	0.3837
VD Philander (SA)	64	224	3.500	22.32	0.3960	0.3811
RJ Harris (AUS)	22	93	4.227	23.33	0.4256	0.3801
TG Southee (NZ)	65	271	4.169	27.00	0.3929	0.3798

So, the three to go through are Cummins, Rabada and Steyn. Anderson misses out, and fairly comfortably in the end, with Bumrah already challenging him due to a simply sublime start to his test career; those are crazy good numbers in your first 16 Tests. That said, Anderson would have missed out just going by average as well, of course. The ICC's own pick, Broad, is 11th on this list, and even that is largely just on the raw amount of cricket played decreasing uncertainty compared to those around him.

Spinners

Player	Mat	W	WPM	Ave	Rating	Bayes
R Ashwin (INDIA)	73	375	5.137	25.22	0.4513	0.4255
HMRKB Herath (SL)	69	355	5.145	26.30	0.4423	0.4180
Saeed Ajmal (PAK)	26	145	5.577	25.46	0.4680	0.4064
RA Jadeja (INDIA)	50	216	4.320	24.49	0.4200	0.3955
Yasir Shah (PAK)	43	227	5.279	30.85	0.4136	0.3899
PP Ojha (INDIA)	13	71	5.462	24.27	0.4744	0.3829
Abdur Rehman (PAK)	18	79	4.389	26.85	0.4043	0.3666
S Shillingford (WI)	11	56	5.091	29.00	0.4190	0.3624
NM Lyon (AUS)	98	394	4.020	31.64	0.3565	0.3527
Shakib Al Hasan (BDESH)	35	135	3.857	30.57	0.3552	0.3467

As would be expected, Ashwin would be the pick, but because he's in as the allrounder, Herath is in instead. There's a good argument that on balance it should be Ashwin in here, and Jadeja in as the allrounder, but I'll stick with the 'top of the list' method here. You could also argue Ashwin and Jadeja being in just to strengthen the batting, but again, we'll stick to that method.

Final XI

Position	Player	Bat Ave	DPM	WPM	Bowl Ave
1	Warner	49.69	NA	NA	NA
2	Cook	44.54	NA	NA	NA
3	Sangakkara	61.64	NA	NA	NA
4	Smith	64.09	NA	0.197	57.64
5	Kohli*	53.42	NA	0.000	NA
6	de Kock†	40.31	4.478	NA	NA
7	Ashwin	27.48	NA	5.137	25.22
8	Cummins	16.54	NA	4.781	21.52
9	Herath	14.92	NA	5.145	26.30
10	Steyn	13.53	NA	4.313	22.56
11	Rabada	11.43	NA	4.581	22.96

Please note that while the adjusted averages were used in the decision, the final list is just given with the raw figures for comparison. Virat was given the captaincy as I'm not convinced he'd play if he wasn't, even in a hypothetical best XI.
In any case, I feel that's a better take on this than the ICC's, particularly given the keeper has actually kept wicket this decade. The choice of time, and team, was poor by the ICC, but ultimately all this is just for a laugh anyhow. The figures themselves could also justify some different permutations, like AB in for de Kock, and Jadeja in for Herath if you want a more batting allrounder, with Ashwin playing primarily as a spinner. The latter may be useful, as that side has a very long tail. That said, they're notionally taking 24 wickets per match, so they'll be right. In all seriousness, it's an interesting question of what would happen if you put 5 players who are so dominant with the ball together in one side. Would their averages improve while the WPM decrease? That's an interesting investigation in and of itself.
In any case, while there are a few rough edges in this analysis, particularly around the keeper, hopefully it's a bit of food for thought. At the very least, it actually covers the 'decade', and has a keeper that kept this decade, so there's that.

Edit: Now that I reread it, that title's a bit poor. It should have been: A Statistical Analysis to Determine a Team of the "Decade" to Improve Upon the ICC's. Oh well, too late now.

How could you expect Lahiru Thirimanne to get constant opportunities to play at test level despite having a mediocre batting average of 22.64 after 35 test matches. On the other hand, Dinesh Chandimal hasn't got such preferential treatment like him and he was not given constant opportunities despite having the potential. Chandimal has a decent test batting average of 41.33 after 58 test matches.
The most shocking question in Sri Lanka is the continuous injustice to Angelo Perera who has been overlooked in test matches despite being a magnificent performer at domestic first-class cricket competitions. He has over 7000 runs in FC with a fine average of over 40 and how often do you find a batsman scoring twin double centuries in a same first-class match. Angelo Perera only got few opportunities to play in limited overs cricket and he has been continuously ignored by Sri Lanka Cricket over the years despite his stellar performances.
The other surprising thing is the continuous ignorance of Pathum Nissanka who has got a stellar FC batting average of 67. But yet he was never included in Sri Lanka test squad despite his fine performances at domestic level. We have seen players like Hanuma Vihari, Shubman Gill, Prithvi Shaw and Will Pucovski getting their opportunities to play at test level after putting up good performances in their country's domestic league performances. With this struggling Sri Lankan team, one should expect a player like Pathum Nissanka to be picked in the national team. But it isn't happening by the way.
Another notable omission is Lahiru Udara who had performed well in 2019/20 Provincial tournament with over 1000 runs. He was overlooked for the South African test tour. Did the chief selector confuse himself by making a dumb error by picking old Lahiru (Thirimanne) over Lahiru (Udara). But ironically, Minod Bhanuka was chosen for South Africa test tour with performance of 676 runs in 2019/20 Provincial tournament.
If Minod Bhanuka can be selected just because of one particular good show in a domestic season why can't consistent domestic performers like Angelo Perera and Pathum Nissanka be selected in Sri Lanka test squad. There is a clearly nepotism and political motives behind player selections.
The chief selector Ashantha de Mel ends simply saying I didn't select the team for South Africa test tour. Then why is he serving as chief selector.

Hello, American here. Many times over the years I have had British or Indian friends try to explain Cricket to me and without some kind of visual aids, my eyes have always just kind of glazed over. Recently I decided to sit down and figure it out once and for all. I watched some YT videos describing the game and then went on to highlights and some matches. I was surprised to find that it is actually nowhere near as complicated as I thought. I think most Americans get hung up on all terminology and how different it looks in play compared to baseball. But honestly, I think baseball is way more complicated. So while I'm sure I don't understand its subtleties I can now watch a match and have a general understanding of what is going on and appreciate the skill and athleticism of the players. I still have a few questions though. Would love to get some feedback. Apologies if I have anything confused or ask an idiotic question. Still trying to figure things out.
Okay, so one thing that confused me at first: in one video I was watching it said something like, "After a bowler completes an over he is replaced with a new player from his team who bowls the next over from the opposite direction." This lead me to believe at first that all 11 players bowl at one time or another. Like there was a "bowling order" where player 1 bowls the first over then player 2 bowls the next one, etc., all the way to player 11. It only took watching one match to realize that was wrong and that, like a pitcher in American baseball, bowling is a very specialized position with different styles, etc.
A couple of questions, though:

1. Are there any laws regarding who bowls other than you can't bowl two overs in a row? In other words, other than that one rule, is it just completely up to the team who they want to have bowl for any given over?
2. Over the course of a test match for example, how many different bowlers would there be typically?
3. After a bowler is done with their over, they return to the field and become a fieldsman, correct? Is there a particular position that bowlers tend to play when they're not bowling?

Okay a few random questions:

• In this video (at 4:00) they show the lineup for the match. Some people have a ball next to their names, some a bat and some both. At first I thought it meant that only some players bat and others never bat (this actually makes sense to a baseball fan, because in most American baseball games, pitchers do not bat). But the laws state pretty clearly that all 11 players have to bat, correct? If so, what do the bats and balls in the graphic indicate?
• Regarding the 12th man: What happens if there are two injuries in a game? Does the team just carry on with just 10 players?
• In most videos I saw, the fieldsman playing the infield are usually fairly spread out. But there were a few where they were playing really, really close to the batsman, basically surrounding him in a close (15-20 feet maybe?) circle. What is going on there?
• One thing I found really interesting is that the thing that gets really celebrated in Cricket is getting a player out. Sure, there is cheering for a run or a 4 or especially a 6. But what the players and the crowd really gets pumped about is getting somebody out. And this makes sense because in Cricket an innings is long and outs are rare so, yeah, it's a big deal when you get somebody out and you're that much closer to ending them running up the score on you so you can get your turn to bat. But my question is: isn't this mostly true for test matches where there are unlimited overs? In T20, for example, is the value of an out cheapened because (and correct me if I'm wrong here) the innings will most like end on overs and not outs?
• Related to the previous question: in T20 is it typical that sometimes some players never get to bat because the innings ended on overs before they got a chance? Again, I could be making an incorrect assumption (or misunderstanding something) about T20 matches typically ending on overs, but it seems like that would make sense because otherwise what is the point of limited overs? If so, how do players that are typically tail-enders feel about this form? Seems like it would be less fun if I never got to bat and was just relegated to a permanent fieldsman.
• Are Cricket fans as big of stat nerds as baseball fans? In baseball there are tons of statistics that are kept track of, batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, ERA, hitting streaks, most hits in a season, most career hits, most stolen bases, etc. It goes on and on. What are some of the things Cricket fans pay attention to? What are some of the legendary never-to-be-beaten records in Cricket?

One last observation: loved watching highlights of bowling legends, esp. those like Shane Warne who could put that nasty spin on the ball and make batsmen look foolish. Any baseball fan can appreciate that!
Edit: thanks for all the great answers. Really helped clear things up for me!

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)

So as I'm trying to understand cricket and the various forms, one thing I've obviously learned is that you tend to bat a lot more conservatively in Test cricket. Generally, it seems a 50 strike rate is about average, and I see many players not even achieve. Of course though, there seems to be some outliers. One being Virender Sehwag.. who had a seemingly outrageous strike rate of 82.2. I was surprised by him because he wasn't a one-or-two-match wonder either.. he came in to bat 180 innings, put up over 8500 runs, and even maintained what seems to be a decent 49.3 average. Another one who's similar is Adam Gilchrist, who had a strike rate of 82 and even blasted 100 6's in Test. (I won't include Tim Southee because he's mostly a bowler, and I really don't know what to make of Shahid Afridi, he didn't play as many matches as the other two).
So my question comes.. why aren't there more players like them out there? I had asked in another thread that it seems it would be natural to have someone like these guys who can put up runs quickly to put pressure on the other team. As someone new to the sport I'm having a hard time understanding why more of these types of batters are not around.. not that everyone should be emulating them but at least maybe 1 of these types per team. Did these guys go against the grain? Were they anomalies that cannot be repeated? Why were they given the leeway to chase the high strike rate? I'm really curious about this.

OK.
takes a long drink of coffee and coughs loudly
Let’s do this.
Welcome back to the fourth year that I have stubbornly insisted on doing this silly series. This year, the Hall of Fame has only included 11 new players on the ballot, so we might actually make it through them all this time.
This year’s ballot is an especially weak one, with no first ballot locks standing out and only a couple of intriguing holdovers. It’s reasonable to expect that a lot of these guys will be saying goodbye to the ballot after this first year so let’s start taking a look at them, starting from the bottom of the pile. Which brings us to...
Nick Swisher
Bill James Hall of Fame Monitor: 14
Career bWAR (14 years): 21.5
Stats: .249/.351/.447, 307 2B, 245 HR, 803 RBI, 113 OPS+
Awards: All-Star (2010, AL), 2009 World Champion
League Leading Stats: Bupkis
Teams Played For: A’s (2004-07), White Sox (2008), Yankees (2009-2012), Cleveland (2013-15), Atlanta (2015)
In many people’s minds, Nick Swisher will always be connected to Moneyball. Jeremy Brown actually got more ink in the book and was probably the position player who most closely mirrored what Beane was hoping to accomplish, but Swisher was the first ever draft pick of Bill Beane’s moneyball mindset, the first in that draft to make the majors and, as a result, kind of became the face of the movement. Which is kind of unfortunate because, unlike virtually all of the A’s other picks in the 2002 draft, Swisher was the one guy who seemed to make people on both sides of the argument happy.
Even now, at the age of 39 and five years out of the game, Swisher passes the eye test. He’s 6’, 200 lbs and has always been one of those guys who looked like a sure thing. Scouts loved the kid out of Ohio State because he looked like a “tools” guy, while Beane knew he would be the easiest point of entry for proving his experiment.
Sure, Swish had the eye and patience that Beane wanted in his moneyball players. He got on base, didn’t make a lot of stupid outs trying to stretch hits or steal bases and, if the A’s won a title and Swisher became a star, it would be easy for Beane to point at his OBP and say “this is what I’m talking about.”
But don’t sleep on the fact that he was also a legit prospect, a consensus first rounder and somebody who, if they didn’t pan out, Beane could shrug and say “what do you want from me? Half the teams in the league would have drafted the kid in the same place.” So even though every other pick the A’s made in that ’02 draft (With the exception of Joe Blanton) was an off the wall stretch, Swisher was the pick that made it all palatable. That’s a lot to put on one kid’s shoulders.
But yet, even though Swisher was never a Super Duper Star, he didn’t collapse under the weight. Through his three full seasons in Oakland, Swish was 30 points better than the league OBP and posted a 119 OPS+ with 78 homers. Overall, he finished sixth in ROY voting in 2005 and left Oakland having posted 9.2 WAR in 458 games.
Swisher was one of those dudes who never really seemed to have a peak, so much as he was just good right up until the moment he wasn’t. Between 2006 and 2013—his age 25-32 seasons—Swish put up five seasons of 3.5 WAR or better, along with a combined .258/.365/.471 slash, 120 OPS+, 215 doubles, 186 homers 607 runs scored and 591 driven in. Splitting a lot of his time between the two and six spots in the order, Swisher was never a guy teams counted on to be The Guy, but who could almost always be counted on to be A guy. His lost season with the White Sox in ’08—a .219, 93 OPS+, -0.2 WAR debacle—was an obvious outlier, but the combination of US Cellular Field and Ozzie Guillen just kind of did that to people. ’08 Carlos Quentin probably would have hit .400 without Ozzie riding his back like Yoda.
He would move to New York after a single season on the south side and performed every bit as well as he did in Oakland. He started his time in the Bronx as a reserve outfielder and source of depth off the bench, but injuries (and Swisher's performance) changed that pretty quickly and Swisher managed 600 PAs every year he was in pinstripes. He won a ring with the team in 2009 even though he spent stretches of the post season looking like he was secretly playing for the other team, and managed to make his only All Star team in 2010 after campaigning for the fan vote harder than Aaron Burr in Hamilton.
Swisher signed with Cleveland ahead of the 2013 season and gave them the last good year of his career that season: 22 homers, .246/.341/.423 slash, 115 OPS+, 3.7 WAR. The next season, his knees both turned into wet wads of chewed bubblegum and he only managed 97 games before going under the knife. He came back with Cleveland the next year and played badly for 30 games before being traded to Atlanta and playing marginally better but still pretty bad for another 45 games. The next season, Swish returned to the Yankees organization, playing 55 games at Scranton/Wilkes-Barre. He didn’t play badly, but New York refused to call him up even though just about every Yankee up to Whitey Ford seemed to spend some time on the DL. Swisher decided that enough was enough and opted out of his contract that July. He formally retired the following February. He became an analyst for Fox Sports and has two kids with his wife, actress JoAnna Garcia.
Even though his career was perfectly serviceable, something about Nick Swisher always kind of left people feeling a little let down. Maybe it was just the eye test thing. The guy looked like he should be an All Star, and not just because he took out a full-page ad asking you fans to vote him in at the last second. But he never seemed to hit quite as well as anyone hoped. The batting average was never really there, 25 homers never felt like it was quite enough for him, and he had a really fun habit of completely disappearing in the post season: through 47 games, mostly with the Yankees, Swisher slashed .165/.277/.297 in October, including .128 in ’09, when he got his only ring. I don’t think Swisher retired with a ton of regrets about his career, and nobody will look back on him wondering what could have been. But, fair or not, his name will probably always come up anytime the conversation turns to what should have been.
One thing he can hang his hat on, however: Swisher was always a fan favorite everywhere he went. Sox fans loved him even though he couldn’t get a hit with a cricket bat, Cleveland had a Swisher stan section known as “Brohio”, and Yankees fans will appreciate anyone who is handsome and can hit a little. But, by all accounts, Swish was a tremendous clubhouse guy as well. Even though he rubbed a lot of opposing (and veteran) players the wrong way as a draftee and rookie by acting bigger than he was, teammates almost universally adored him. Fellow 2002 draftee and former Marlins, Padres and Cubs catcher John Baker summed it up in an interview with Vice in 2017:
“He grew up in a major league locker room. He acted like a major leaguer when he wasn't, and truthfully it pissed off a lot of people. (…but) when I look back at all my experiences with Nick, even batting behind him in Double-A and getting hit when he would pimp homers and they wouldn't go over the fence—I would get hit for him, it happened multiple times—when I look back at Nick Swisher as a teammate, I always laugh and it always brings a smile to my face.”
Nick Swisher played 12 seasons in the bigs, all in the AL, getting the majority of his at bats with the Yankees and Oakland. He may be forever tied to Oakland and Billy Beane in baseball lore, but I’m putting him into the Hypothetical Hall as a Yankee, thanks to his .268/.367/.483 slash, 105 homers and 124 OPS+, as well as his lone All-Star appearance and World Series title.
Chances of getting into the Hall of Fame: worse than his wife’s chances of being in anything better than Freaks and Geeks.
Chances of leaving the ballot this year: 100%