Arthur Crabtree wrote:If it's a formula, there can't be any deliberate imbalance you'd think.
A strength of the exercise, and maybe a weakness too. It excludes the unquantifiable. Or less common factors
The guy who did the original 2001 list, recently redid the maths to include more modern data available, and I think Gooch's effort v Windies at Headingley is now rated number 1. Lara dropped to 5, and Laxman is well down the list now IIRC.
The formula is clearly a load of tosh though. Azhar Mahmood's forgettable 100 vs South Africa in 1999 is rated 3 or 4 now. To put that into context, the match was heavily rain effected (only 20 wickets went down in 5 days). The pitch was decent, both sides scored 350 in their only innings. Mahmood largely faced the dual threat of Pat Symcox and Lance Klusener, hardly two world class bowlers. And Mahmood was neither the only lower order/tail to score runs, nor had the best score; that goes to Symcox, who also made a 100 at 8 or 9. Any measure that rates that as a timeless innings of quality can be disregarded.
I think judging on the explanation, that Mahmood's innings heavily factors up on percentage of total innings scored sheparding the tail. Runs that elongate innings seem to crank it up. But then again, how can Lara score 153 to win a game with 9 down, against the statistically best team ever (and two bowlers who get voted as the best ever), and not go above him? It seems runs scored generally in the match factor.
Just a note on the Bradman innings. The sticky wicket is a bit of a red herring. England did declare 9 down, but the pitch had played well until heavy rain made it impossible to bat. They wanted an hour at Australia before the wicket dried out on other days(in fact, Bradman apparently pretended not to hear England declare, wasting valubale time at the end of the day, which really upset his opposite number)..... Australia then sent out their batting line up the wrong way round hoping to salvage a few wickets of proper batters when conditions improved.
There was then a rest day, after which Australia resumed on a now totally dry pitch, that was flat and comfortable to bat on. England made nearly 350 on what would have been 7th and 8th day after the test started. These types of 4th innings were almost unheard of in the 20s, and considering it wasnt a 5 day test, it shows how the now dried pitch must have been pretty placid.
I say uncommon. I believe (without looking for details) that Adelaide and Melbourne were unique in the cricket world in this era, for producing pitches that lasted a long time. They often got flatter and slower. I believe (again can be corrected) that all the 4th innings records up to about the 60s were from these two venues.
I also believe that both teams at some point in the test got ill. Bradman himself could barely go out to bat after he remained underfeated on 250 overnight, and didnt last long the following day. But its said that the whole of the England pace attack came down with the flu, and so match reports indicate they could barely get up to medium pace. A part time bowler (Hammond) bowls a lot of overs on the scorecard, so its believed).
All in all, it seems charitable to give it to Bradman. He'd have got mega points for the top order failing (but they batted the tail), for prolonging the innings at 7 (see again), batting with the tail (When really it was the middle order)...... all these are weighted heavily enough to make me think it was designed to put the Don at the top.
Lara's bridgetown effort is off course my favourite too.