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.

Indian Cricket In The Decade 2011-20 Review.

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.

Looking at Pant's success, did Australia miss a trick by not persisting with Maxwell in Tests?

A Statistical Analysis to Determine and Improve upon the ICC's Team of the "Decade"

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:

Wicket Keepers
All Rounder
Opener
Number 3
Top Order Batsman
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.

UPDATE: So I tried to look at a Z-score analysis for bowlers in test cricket

So I tried to look at a Z-score analysis for bowlers in test cricket

Treat Pant like Sehwag which is to let him bat in his own way

Best Players in the Sheffield Shield, 2018-19 to now

Thought it might be worth just putting the figures up here before the second test, for those curious. I see a lot of off hand comments about Shield form, without really referencing the actual numbers.
All this will be are those figures for batting, bowling and all round performance. This will be the top 20 for each, with a minimum of 15 wickets taken for bowlers, and 15 dismissals for batsmen. These are very low minima, but there are a lot of players who don't play a lot of Shield cricket. Do take this into account:

Batters

Player	Match	Inns	Runs	Ave
WJ Pucovski	17	27	1648	68.67
SE Marsh	20	37	1956	59.27
MS Harris	29	49	2691	58.50
NJ Maddinson	21	34	1738	56.06
CD Green	16	27	1149	54.71
MS Wade	27	48	2237	54.56
GJ Maxwell	12	22	934	46.70
TM Head	25	48	2126	45.23
AT Carey	14	26	991	45.05
JA Burns	26	50	1982	43.09
CT Bancroft	19	35	1296	41.81
CL White	16	28	1024	40.96
Usman Khawaja	14	24	833	39.67
SM Whiteman	13	24	947	39.46
SE Gotch	20	29	901	39.17
DP Hughes	33	63	2186	39.04
MC Henriques	30	54	1878	38.33
MR Marsh	14	27	985	37.88
TLW Cooper	26	49	1669	37.09
M Labuschagne	28	52	1795	36.63

Marnus has been very unimpressive, though this shouldn't come as a surprise if you've been following along. His improvement after his county spell has been remarkable, and he's not played enough Shield cricket to pump up that average.
Other notable points are Shaun Marsh still dominating, as he always does, while Susan Koala hasn't done a lot to restake his claim to a test berth. The faith placed in Harris and Wade seems reasonable, though Harris has a right to feel a bit hard done by. Green's selection at 6 makes a lot of sense in this context alone, before even considering his bowling.
Australia are in good hands when Paine eventually retires, which is a positive as well. It seems the big one with replacing Paine is who becomes captain, as opposed to who becomes the keeper.
Maddison deserves his own paragraph, what a turn around from him. I do wonder if he'll ever get another chance. His averaging since moving has been 79.50, and his full average is still impressive.
As to the bowlers, which I'll rank by my bowling rating, which is the geometric mean of their WPM and 1/average, ie basically covering both their ability to take wickets consistently, and take them cheaply:

Bowlers

Player	Match	W	WPM	Ave	Rating
JR Hazlewood	4	22	5.500	12.86	0.6539
MA Starc	8	45	5.625	19.13	0.5422
NT Ellis	5	30	6.000	23.03	0.5104
JM Bird	28	130	4.643	22.46	0.4546
MG Neser	28	115	4.107	21.10	0.4411
TA Copeland	29	121	4.172	23.13	0.4247
JA Richardson	13	54	4.154	23.50	0.4204
WJ Sutherland	7	24	3.429	19.71	0.4171
CP Tremain	28	115	4.107	23.88	0.4147
XC Bartlett	5	20	4.000	23.85	0.4095
SM Boland	28	113	4.036	24.33	0.4073
DJ Worrall	16	67	4.188	25.46	0.4055
LW Feldman	17	64	3.765	22.98	0.4047
JL Pattinson	11	40	3.636	22.33	0.4036
TS Rogers	14	46	3.286	21.28	0.3929
GT Bell	22	80	3.636	25.34	0.3788
MT Steketee	24	87	3.625	25.49	0.3771
SA Abbott	21	76	3.619	27.12	0.3653
JM Mennie	24	86	3.583	27.81	0.3589
CJ Gannon	15	52	3.467	27.71	0.3537

Ignoring the cases of limited numbers of wickets, there's not a lot of surprises there. Sayers has fallen off a cliff in recent times of course, averaging in the 30s, but that's a different point.
Finally, there's players by all round performance, this is just a geometric mean of batting average and that bowling rating:

All Rounders

Player	Match	Runs	Ave	W	Ave	Rating	AllRond
MG Neser	28	1064	30.40	115	21.10	0.4411	3.662
SA Abbott	21	908	34.92	76	27.12	0.3653	3.572
CD Green	16	1149	54.71	18	25.22	0.2112	3.399
JA Richardson	13	354	19.67	54	23.50	0.4204	2.875
JD Wildermuth	26	1115	29.34	53	29.40	0.2633	2.780
MR Marsh	14	985	37.88	21	36.48	0.2028	2.772
TS Rogers	14	362	19.05	46	21.28	0.3929	2.736
AC Agar	13	604	35.53	26	51.04	0.1980	2.652
MP Stoinis	18	869	28.97	33	33.12	0.2353	2.611
JM Bird	28	533	14.41	130	22.46	0.4546	2.559
SNJ O'Keefe	17	412	18.73	55	27.18	0.3450	2.542
CJ Sayers	22	572	19.07	73	31.53	0.3244	2.487
ML Kelly	28	518	17.86	90	27.87	0.3396	2.463
CJ Gannon	15	256	17.07	52	27.71	0.3537	2.457
SA Milenko	13	555	26.43	23	34.61	0.2261	2.444
MT Steketee	24	458	15.79	87	25.49	0.3771	2.440
JM Mennie	24	605	16.35	86	27.81	0.3589	2.423
CP Tremain	28	410	14.14	115	23.88	0.4147	2.421
TA Copeland	29	470	13.06	121	23.13	0.4247	2.355
NP Winter	21	427	15.81	77	30.61	0.3461	2.340

Green comes third here largely due to his lack of bowling last season, but still, it's interesting to see how well Neser and Abbott are still doing with bat and ball.
Stoinis' "Test credentials" as plain to see. Warnie is a cricket genius.
Mitch Marsh's race may be run at this point, as the best argument for his return was always that his bowling was good, but that's fallen off a cliff, though like Green that's also to do with lack of bowling due to injury.
Green's selection seems well justified in any case.
Anyhow, out of that, Harris and Maddison would be justified in feeling a bit hard done by, but at the same time, both have had their issues. I suspect we'll see them pop up again if their form continues.
Edit: I should have probably noted that the above is in terms of players split by their performances by State. On reflection, this is well silly, so I've corrected it. I've edited the tables, and added a line about Maddison.
Double Edit: As it turns out, I was so focused on getting the tables right, but messed up my title. It should read 2017-18, not 2018-19. Whoopsies, and cheers Plackation.

Correction and Feedback on a Statistical Method to Determine a Team of the "Decade"

This is a follow up to this thread, which generated some very interesting discussion. Usually, I like to leave work as it is, but a few good points were raised, and in discussion with a poster on something unrelated, I discovered an error in my calculation. This thread seeks to correct this error, and take into account some suggestions that I personally felt were quite valid.
The first, funnily enough came from me about 4 seconds after I posted the thread. The use of 0.6×WPM to estimate the standard deviation for each player felt sketchy when I wrote it, and I regretted this choice immediately after, simply because I didn't feel it was well justified. So, I figured I'd do a slightly longer justification of this, and see if we can get a better estimate of it. To achieve this, I'll be using the 15 bowlers with 50+ tests bowling in the first 4 roles, though looking at their overall statistics. I've also made a minor adjustment to the requirements here of bowlers needing to bowl at least 20 overs per match, which changes virtually nothing, but I already did a day or so ago, and figured I'll leave in. In any case, the results are like the more general tests I did a while ago, though 0.60 does seem a bit of a low 'rule of thumb' estimate, with the average being 0.6410, and the standard deviation in this being 0.0802. Due to this, I figured rather than going through and redoing my code entirely, etc, I'd just up the rule of thumb from 0.6000 to 0.7000. This is a dirty, dirty way of doing it, but the method was already dirty as hell.
The second concern raised was around the nature of this being a team of the decade. The question was raised as to whether or not someone who has only been playing a handful of years this decade should even be considered. On this basis, on the corrected teams, I'll disqualify anyone who has not been active for at least 5 years of the decade. This will be defined by the year of their first and last tests that decade. So someone who played in 2011 and 2015 would be eligible, even if they didn't play in 2012-14.
The third was around selection criteria. Selecting players an allrounder before a specialist does indeed make no sense, and I'm glad a couple of people raised this as a concern. The reason I agree with them here can be seen in the actual team as picked. Picking Ashwin as an allrounder first meant that a weaker batter was in the side, and an even weaker one was picked as the spinner in Herath. If we went the other way, it would be Ashwin as the spinner, and Jadeja as the allrounder. This makes sense, as ideally you pick your best bowlers as... well, the bowlers, and then others come into the frame due to their other qualities, rather than the other way around. This means that the order of picking players will go:

Wicket Keepers
Bowlers
Openers
Number 3
Top Order Batsmen
All Rounders

ie, start from the hard to fill roles. There is certainly more discussion that can be had around this.
Finally, the big one, and the reason I made this post was an error with how I propagated uncertainty. The calculations with a geometric mean should propagate uncertainty with a factor of a half, but... well, when I wrote the code I just forgot to put it in there. This means that in all calculations which involved one of these geometric means, the uncertainty was doubled. This happened for wicket keepers, bowlers and allrounders, twice over for all rounders even. This does indeed have an impact. Whoopsies.
While batters are completely unaffected by this error, I'll post their data anyhow, just as a chance to discuss if we need to for eligibility. Eligibility will only be discussed for players who would be picked if not for it.
Anyhow, let's get picking, this time in selection order.

Wicket Keeper

Player	Mat	Runs	Ave	Dis	D/M	Rating	B-Rating
AB de Villiers (SA)	21	1955	63.06	83	3.952	15.79	13.33
Q de Kock (SA)	46	2902	40.31	206	4.478	13.43	12.80
BJ Watling (NZ)	64	3374	40.17	249	3.891	12.50	12.18
RR Pant (INDIA)	14	843	38.32	65	4.643	13.34	12.00
JM Bairstow (ENG)	48	3028	37.85	181	3.771	11.95	11.70
TD Paine (AUS)	29	1130	31.39	134	4.621	12.04	11.60
MJ Prior (ENG)	40	2069	39.04	142	3.550	11.77	11.50
Sarfaraz Ahmed (PAK)	48	2651	37.34	163	3.396	11.26	11.14
LD Chandimal (SL)	24	1602	41.08	72	3.000	11.10	10.94
MS Dhoni (INDIA)	37	1951	34.84	126	3.405	10.89	10.82

So, with the correction AB is clearly favoured, largely on his batting.

Spinner

Player	Mat	W	WPM	Ave	Rating	B-Rating
R Ashwin (INDIA)	73	375	5.137	25.22	0.4513	0.4417
Saeed Ajmal (PAK)	26	145	5.577	25.46	0.4680	0.4401
HMRKB Herath (SL)	69	355	5.145	26.30	0.4423	0.4333
PP Ojha (INDIA)	13	71	5.462	24.27	0.4744	0.4247
RA Jadeja (INDIA)	50	216	4.320	24.49	0.4200	0.4108
Yasir Shah (PAK)	43	227	5.279	30.85	0.4136	0.4045
S Shillingford (WI)	11	56	5.091	29.00	0.4190	0.3895
Abdur Rehman (PAK)	18	79	4.389	26.85	0.4043	0.3874
NM Lyon (AUS)	98	394	4.020	31.64	0.3565	0.3554
Shakib Al Hasan (BDESH)	35	135	3.857	30.57	0.3552	0.3524

Ashwin, of course, wins. Ajmal was damn close, but would not have been eligible anyhow, as he was only playing for a 4 year stretch in the decade, 2011-2014.

Seamers

Player	Mat	W	WPM	Ave	Rating	B-Rating
PJ Cummins (AUS)	32	153	4.781	21.52	0.4714	0.4460
JJ Bumrah (INDIA)	16	76	4.750	20.68	0.4792	0.4327
K Rabada (SA)	43	197	4.581	22.96	0.4467	0.4317
DW Steyn (SA)	48	207	4.313	22.56	0.4373	0.4250
D Olivier (SA)	10	48	4.800	19.25	0.4994	0.4249
RJ Harris (AUS)	22	93	4.227	23.33	0.4256	0.4053
BW Hilfenhaus (AUS)	11	47	4.273	22.06	0.4401	0.3999
JM Anderson (ENG)	100	395	3.950	24.33	0.4029	0.3992
N Wagner (NZ)	51	219	4.294	26.33	0.4039	0.3969
MA Starc (AUS)	59	252	4.271	26.75	0.3996	0.3939

Bumrah's impressive record really stands out, here, but ultimately he is not eligible due to only playing since 2018, so a 3 year stretch. This means an unchanged trio of Cummins, Rabada and Steyn are picked. Cummins is eligible as he debuted in 2011, and has played in 5 separate years anyhow (2011, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020). Bumrah's efforts deserve a mention though. He's yet to even play a home Test, yet boasts such a record, which is truly ridiculous. Not to get too off on a tangent here, but look at the best away records (min 50 wickets):

Player	Mat	W	WPM	Ave	Rat
WJ O'Reilly (AUS)	15	85	5.667	21.19	0.5171
JA Snow (ENG)	12	62	5.167	20.92	0.4970
Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ)	43	230	5.349	21.72	0.4962
PM Pollock (SA)	11	60	5.455	22.23	0.4953
J Garner (WI)	29	136	4.690	19.74	0.4874
PJ Cummins (AUS)	14	72	5.143	21.86	0.4850
JJ Bumrah (INDIA)	16	76	4.750	20.68	0.4792
FH Tyson (ENG)	13	56	4.308	18.96	0.4766
GD McGrath (AUS)	58	274	4.724	20.81	0.4764
Mohammad Asif (PAK)	19	96	5.053	22.50	0.4739

That is some high company, and honestly, it's hard to not get excited about a potential addition to the pantheon of all time greats. Not for this "decade" though. Moving along:

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

No eligibility concerns, it's Warner and Cook still. I did read some crying about Warner's away record. You can read my thoughts on that here.

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

I got a number of posts question why Sangakkara would bat three, and not play as keeper. As noted, he didn't keep this decade, and wasn't any better than someone like de Kock with the bat when he did the previous decade, and he was a monster at 3, as shown above. He did indeed play in 5 years of the decade, from 2011-2015, so he is eligible. Sangakkara it is.

Other Top Order Batsmen

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

It's Smith and Kohli, as Sangakkara is at 3, just as before.

All Rounders

Player	Mat	Bat-Ave	WPM	Bowl-Ave	Rating	AllRnd	B-AllRnd
Shakib Al Hasan (BDESH)	35	44.72	3.857	30.57	0.3552	3.985	3.607
RA Jadeja (INDIA)	50	35.67	4.320	24.49	0.4200	3.871	3.535
R Ashwin (INDIA)	73	27.48	5.137	25.22	0.4513	3.521	3.376
BA Stokes (ENG)	67	37.85	2.358	31.41	0.2740	3.220	3.143
JO Holder (WI)	45	32.05	2.578	27.95	0.3037	3.120	3.021
VD Philander (SA)	64	24.04	3.500	22.32	0.3960	3.085	3.008
MA Starc (AUS)	59	22.16	4.271	26.75	0.3996	2.976	2.914
C de Grandhomme (NZ)	24	37.03	1.958	31.64	0.2488	3.035	2.890
MG Johnson (AUS)	32	22.47	4.250	27.07	0.3963	2.984	2.887
CR Woakes (ENG)	38	27.52	2.947	29.30	0.3171	2.954	2.872

The correction really helps Shakib, whose only issue was uncertainty around his performances. This is entirely my mistake, and he makes the list handily in the end.

Final Corrected 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	de Villiers†	63.06	3.952	NA	NA
6	Kohli*	53.42	NA	0.000	NA
7	Shakib	44.72	NA	3.857	30.57
8	Ashwin	27.48	NA	5.137	25.22
9	Cummins	16.54	NA	4.781	21.52
10	Steyn	13.53	NA	4.313	22.56
11	Rabada	11.43	NA	4.581	22.96

So yeah, that's not far off what a lot of people suggested in the comments. The idea of Kohli coming in at 6 after the keeper tickles me slightly, but I did just follow the method. Shakib in the side looks damn good too, and the issues surrounding a long tail have been well and truly dealt with.
Edit: Fixed error in allrounders table, which listed WPM to no decimal places.

Reverse Engineering the ICC Test Batting Rankings

The Lineal World Championship: An Alternative History of Test Cricket (Part 1/5)

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:

Tour the current champions as the #1 contender; or
Tour the current champions after beating them at home; or
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 2, 3 and 4)
--
PART ONE: THE EARLY YEARS (1882-1905)
In the beginning, England played Australia, and that was that. The two sides played 30 Tests against each other over 15 years before South Africa played its first Test. As a result, in the first two decades of its existence, the world championship was exclusively contested by them. However, it wouldn't be too presumptuous to call their contests a world championship—after all, around this time, a couple of baseball leagues in the United States began calling their end-of-season showdown the World Series—and this exercise is basically an attempt to open up the Ashes structure to other teams. Aided by the vagaries of weather, uncovered pitches and playing conditions (three-day Tests in England; timeless Tests in Australia), they produced plenty of exciting cricket, made innovations to the game and drew crowds in the tens of thousands.

#1: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (1 TEST, 1882)
One of the most consequential Test matches ever played, the August 1882 Test between England and Australia at The Oval gave birth to the Ashes as well as the lineal world championship. Seven of the eight Tests played before this one had been won by the home team, and England was heavily favoured to beat the touring Aussies. ("It will be observed that in every instance the batting average of each member of the Australian team is lower than that of the English batsman placed opposite him, and that the bowling averages of the two men who had the largest share of the trundling for England are both better than either of those of the two bowlers who sent down the largest number of overs for Australia," Wisden noted.) Australia won the toss and were bowled out for 63 in 80 overs. In response, Frederick Spofforth took 7/46 to restrict England to 101 and then took 7/44 to defend a target of 85. Cue obituaries of English cricket, etc., as Australia were crowned the first ever world champions.
Result: Australia win by seven runs. Player of the Match: Frederick Spofforth (14/90)

#2: AUSTRALIA v ENGLAND (3 TESTS, 1882-83)
Australia's reign as world champion lasted just 155 days. In the first ever Ashes series, Ivo Bligh's England and Billy Murdoch's Australia won one each of the two games in Melbourne, setting up a decider at the SCG. After Bligh won the toss and elected to bat, a 116-run sixth-wicket partnership between Walter Read and Edmund Tylecote helped England put on 247, before a 94 by Alec Bannerman brought Australia to within 29 runs. A 7/44 by Spofforth in the second innings restricted England to 123, but nearly seventy overs of unchanged bowling by Fred Morley (2/34) and Dick Barlow (7/40) bowled Australia out for 83. The 69-run win, after which a group of Australian women burned a bail and presented the ashes to Bligh, began England's first reign as world champions.
(Note: These three Tests featured the Australian XI that had toured England in 1882. A fourth Test was played at Sydney featuring a "full-strength" Australian side, which Australia won. I'm following Wisden and Cricinfo's convention of treating the fourth Test as a separate series. If you want to consider this a 2-2 series, or a 2-1 Australia win considering the first match does not seem to have had Test status, Australia's reign as world champions lasts until 1884-85, when England won the five-Test series, 3-2.)
Result: England win, 2-1. Player of the Series: Walter Read (210 runs @ 42.00)

#3: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1884)
England's first defence of its world title began disastrously, as Frederick Spofforth (4/42) and Harry Boyle (6/42) dismissed the champions for 95 on the second day of the 1884 Ashes in Manchester. (There was no play on Day 1.) However, England fought back to restrict Australia to 182 and batted 130 overs to save the game on the third and final day.
In the second Test, the first ever played at Lord's, Ted Peate took 6/85 as England had Australia at 160/9 before a 69-run partnership between Tup Scott and Boyle. Allan Steel's 148 helped England take a 150-run lead the following day, and George Ulyett took 7/36 to set up an innings victory and retain the world title.
In the final Test at The Oval, centuries by Scott and Percy McDonnell, and 211 by Murdoch, forced the English captain, Lord Harris, to use 11 bowlers, including wicketkeeper Alfred Lyttelton, who ended up with 4/19 in 12 overs. However, declarations had not yet been invented, and Australia ended up batting 311 overs for its first-innings total of 551, before a 151-run ninth-wicket partnership between William Scotton and Walter Read saved the match.
Result: England retain, 1-0. Player of the Series: George Ulyett (11 wickets @ 17.63)

#4: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1886)
Having defeated Australia in the first ever five-Test Ashes series, in 1884-85, England were favourites to retain their world title a second time. In the Manchester Test, Australia was at 181/4 before losing six wickets for 24 runs. A Walter Read fifty helped England take a slight first-innings lead before Dick Barlow's 7/44 set up a four-wicket victory. A 164 by Arthur Shrewsbury and match figures of 11/74 by Johnny Briggs sealed the series with an innings victory at Lord's, while a 170 by WG Grace and 12/104 by George Lohmann completed the whitewash at The Oval.
Result: England retain, 3-0. Player of the Series: Arthur Shrewsbury (243 runs @ 60.75)

#5: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1888)
After weeks of bad weather, England's third title defence began on a Lord's wicket so bad "that many quite dispassionate judges thought the game would be so fluky, that victory would depend almost entirely upon success in the toss," according to Wisden. Australia won the toss and, "never attempting to show correct cricket," slogged their way to 116. Charlie Turner (5/27) and JJ Ferris (3/19) then combined to bowl England out for 53, before George Lohmann (4/33) and Bobby Peel (4/14) bundled Australia out for 60. Set a target of 124, England only managed half the runs as "Turner and Ferris carried everything before them."
The wicket at The Oval was much better for batting, but Australia had collapsed to 50/7 by lunch on Day 1. They were bowled out for 80, before England scored 317 and dismissed Australia for 100 to seal an innings victory in two days. More rain meant that the Old Trafford pitch was almost as bad as the one at Lord's, and Turner took 5/86 to restrict England to 172 in the first innings, but Peel's match figures of 11/68 helped dismiss Australia for 81 and 70 to seal the series.
Result: England retain, 2-1. Player of the Series: Bobby Peel (24 wickets @ 7.54)

#6: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1890)
Australia's fourth attempt to wrest away the world title began in attacking style, with John Lyons hitting 55 in the first 45 minutes of play on a slow pitch at Lord's. However, his dismissal, with the team's score at 66, triggered a collapse as the rest of the side fell for 66 additional runs. Lyons then took 5/30 to restrict England to 173, before scoring 33 in 25 minutes as Australia scored 176. Set a target of 136, the English captain, WG Grace, remained unbeaten at 75 to seal a seven-wicket win.
On another slow pitch at The Oval, Australia were bowled out for 92 within two and a half hours, with debutant Fred Martin taking 6/50. They fought back to bowl England out for 100, but only managed 102 in their second innings. Defending a target of 95, Australia had England at 32/4, but a 51-run partnership between Maurice Reed and James Cranston helped England eke out a two-wicket win to retain the world championship. The dead rubber at Manchester was abandoned without a ball being bowled.
Result: England retain, 2-0. Player of the Series: Fred Martin (12 wickets @ 8.50)

#7: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1893)
Yet another title defence began on a rain-affected Lord's pitch, but a century by Arthur Shrewsbury and 91 by Stanley Jackson took England to 334 on the first day. In response, Australia were at 7/2 and 75/5, before a century on debut by Harry Graham brought the challengers to within 65 runs of the English total. Shrewsbury and Billy Gunn then added 152 for the second wicket before seven wickets fell for 55 runs, but rain prevented play from resuming after lunch on Day 3 and the match was drawn.
A century by Jackson, and fifties by Shrewsbury, WG Grace, Andrew Stoddart, Albert Ward and Walter Read, took England to 483 in the first innings of the Oval Test, before Bill Lockwood (8/133) and Johnny Briggs (10/148) combined to bowl out Australia for 91 and 349, ensuring the world title would be retained. In the final Test at Manchester, a Gunn century in the first innings and a 78-run opening partnership between Grace and Stoddart in the second made sure the series victory was never really in doubt.
Result: England retain, 1-0. Player of the Series: Arthur Shrewsbury (284 runs @ 71.00)

#8: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1896)
A record crowd of over thirty thousand gathered at Lord's for the first Test of England's sixth defence of the world championship, which began in controversial fashion as the MCC committee refused to pick KS Ranjitsinhji, despite Ranji becoming the first amateur to score a thousand runs in a season, because he was not born in England. (The decision was made by former England captain Lord Harris, who was born in Trinidad.) Tom Richardson (6/39) and George Lohmann (3/13) soon returned the attention to the cricket, skittling out Australia for just 53 on the first morning. England built up a lead of two hundred with the loss of just four wickets, but then lost their final six wickets for 36 runs. Australia then lost their final seven wickets for 64 runs and set England a modest target of 109. Overnight rain caused the pitch to deteriorate, but the champions managed a six-wicket win. The Lancashire committee was happy to name Ranji in the team for the Manchester Test, and the maharaja scored 62 and 154* in response to Australia's first-innings total of 412. However, in the absence of adequate support, England could only set a target of 125, which Richardson's 6/76 was unable to defend.
There was more controversy before the deciding Test at The Oval, as five professional cricketers demanded that their match fees be doubled from £10 to £20, causing the Surrey committee to consider dropping them. Ultimately, the rebellion was thwarted, and three of the five (barring Lohmann and Billy Gunn) were named in the side. Rain prevented much play on Day 1, with England reaching 69/1 at stumps, and Hugh Trumble's 6/59 forced a collapse of 67/9, as England finished on 145. Jack Hearne took 6/41 to secure a 26-run lead, but Trumble responded with 6/30 to bowl England out for 84. Chasing 111 to finally win back the world title, Australia promptly collapsed to 25/9, eventually being dismissed for 44, with Hearne taking 4/19 and Bobby Peel finishing with 6/23.
Result: England retain, 2-1. Player of the Series: Tom Richardson (24 wickets @ 18.29)

#9: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (5 TESTS, 1899)
It was seventh-time lucky for Australia as, after decisively beating England at home in the 1897-98 Ashes, they finally wrested away the world title in the first five-Test Ashes series on English soil. Ernie Jones's 5/88 earned Australia a 59-run first-innings lead in the first Test at Trent Bridge, and an 80 by Clem Hill helped set a target of 290. England were down to 19/4 on the final day, but a 93* by Ranjitsinhji saved the match. In the second Test, at Lord's, Jones took 7/88 to dismiss England for 206, before centuries by Hill and Victor Trumper took Australia to 421. Tom Hayward (77) and captain Archie MacLaren (88) tried to mount a fightback, but only two other English batsmen reached double figures and Australia was left with a target of just 26.
In the Headingley Test, Jack Worrall's attacking 76 on the first morning (the score was 95/4 when he departed) helped Australia reach 172 on a rain-affected pitch, and Hugh Trumble's 5/60 helped keep England's lead under fifty. Trumble then scored 56 to rescue Australia from 97/6, and rain prevented play on the final day. Then, after England amassed a 176-run first-innings lead in the fourth Test at Old Trafford, half-centuries by Worrall, Trumper and Monty Noble salvaged a draw.
England were 435/4 after the first day of the decisive Oval Test, thanks to centuries by openers Stanley Jackson and Hayward. However, despite Bill Lockwood's 7/71 in the first innings, Australia managed to bat for nearly 250 overs in their two innings, building on Syd Gregory's century in the first and half-centuries by the top three in the second, to save the match and finally end England's 16-year reign as world champions.
Result: Australia win, 1-0. Player of the Series: Ernie Jones (26 wickets @ 25.26)

#10: AUSTRALIA v ENGLAND (5 TESTS, 1901-02)
Australia went into the first defence of their second world title having won two of their previous three home series against England, and with all the players who had won the title in 1899 available for selection. However, after winning the toss at Sydney and promoting himself to opener, the English captain, Archie MacLaren, scored an attritional century to help his team reach 464. Debutant Sydney Barnes then took 5/65 to bowl Australia out for 168, before fellow debutant Len Braund took 5/61 to secure an innings victory.
MacLaren put Australia in to bat on a rain-affected pitch in Melbourne, and Barnes took 6/42 to bowl the champions out for 112. However, Monty Noble responded with 7/17 as England were dismissed for 61, and a 99 by Clem Hill was followed by a century by No. 10 Reggie Duff to set England a target of 405. Noble (6/60) and Hugh Trumble (4/49) then combined to dismiss England for 175 and square the series. The third Test at Adelaide lasted six days, with a century by Braund being neutralised by Clem Hill's 98 and Trumble's 6/74 to set Australia a target of 315. Barnes had injured his knee in the first innings, so could not bowl in the second, and Hill scored 97, his third ninety in a row, to set up a thrilling four-wicket win.
Needing to win both the remaining Tests to win back the world title, MacDonald scored 92 in the first innings of the fourth Test, again at the SCG, as England scored 317 and reduced Australia to 48/4. However, all the remaining Aussie batsmen got starts and clawed their team to 299, before Noble and Jack Saunders took fifers and dismissed England for 99 in the second innings, setting up a seven-wicket victory to retain the championship. The dead rubber at the MCG was a low-scoring affair, with Hill being the only batsman from either side to score a half-century and Noble taking 6/98 to defend a 211-run target and win the series 4-1.
Result: Australia retain, 4-1. Player of the Series: Monty Noble (32 wickets @ 19.00)

#11: AUSTRALIA v ENGLAND (5 TESTS, 1903-04)
Australia followed up its first title defence by winning the 1902 Ashes in England and beating South Africa on their maiden tour in 1902-03. In the first Test of their second defence, at the SCG, however, they were stopped in their tracks by a record-breaking debutant. After a Monty Noble century got Australia to 285, Tip Foster single-handedly overtook the Aussie total with 287, setting a record for the highest score by a visiting player in Australia that would stand for over a century, until Ross Taylor scored 290 in 2015. Trailing by 292, Australia were rescued by an unbeaten 185 by Victor Trumper, but England chased down the fairly straightforward target of 195 with five wickets in hand. A 7/56 by Wilfred Rhodes then gave England a 193-run first-innings lead in the Melbourne Test and, despite collapsing for 103 in the second innings, the challengers managed to win by 185 runs thanks to Rhodes's 8/68.
In the Adelaide Test, Australia hit back with its top four all crossing fifty, including a century by Trumper, in a first-innings total of 388, which was followed by a century by Syd Gregory in a second-innings total of 351 to set up a 216-run victory. However, Rhodes took 4/33 and Ted Arnold took 4/28 to give England a first-innings lead of 118 in the fourth Test at Sydney, before Bernard Bosanquet, the inventor of the googly, took 6/51 in the second innings to end Australia's second title reign. Australia won the final Test at the MCG, which started just two days after the fourth, by dismissing England for 61 and 101, but it was too little, too late.
Result: England win, 3-2. Player of the Series: Wilfred Rhodes (31 wickets @ 15.74)

#12: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (5 TESTS, 1905)
Frank Laver took 7/64 on a batting-friendly pitch at Nottingham to restrict England to 196 in the first Test of their title defence, but Victor Trumper injured his back and the English captain Stanley Jackson dismissed three members of the Australian middle order (two of whom had crossed fifty) in a single over, eventually taking 5/52 as Australia were bowled out for 221. Jackson then scored 82 in the second innings, assisting his predecessor as captain, Archie MacLaren (140), and John Tyldesley (61) to set Australia a target of 402. Bernard Bosanquet then took 8/107 as England won by 213 runs.
The next two Tests, at Lord's and Headingley, were drawn, with England in a commanding position in both. Rain prevented play on the final day at Lord's, with England ahead by 252 with five second-innings wickets left, while defensive leg-theory bowling by Warwick Armstrong (5/122 in 51 overs unchanged) and obdurate batting by Monty Noble (62 in 166 minutes) in the second innings at Leeds kept the series alive.
Australia needed to win the final two Tests to regain the world championship, but a century by Jackson put England in a commanding position at Manchester, with a first-innings total of 446. Walter Brearley then took 8/126 over two innings, as Australia were bowled out for 197 and 169. The final Test, at The Oval, was drawn. Both teams took advantage of favourable batting conditions, with CB Fry, Reggie Duff and Tyldesley all scoring centuries.
Result: England retain, 2-0. Player of the Series: Stanley Jackson (492 runs @ 70.28, 13 wickets @ 15.46)
--
CHAMPIONSHIP REIGNS

#	TEAM	DURATION (DAYS)	SUCCESSFUL DEFENCES
1	Australia	155	0
2	England	6,043	6
3	Australia (2)	1,661	1
4	England (2)	532*	1

top batting average in test cricket video

Official International Cricket Council rankings for test match cricket players. Discover latest ICC rankings table, predict upcoming matches, see points and ratings for all teams. ICC Cricket ranking of teams, batsmen, bowler and all - rounder.Get latest ICC cricket ranking of ODI, Test matches, T20 and ICC rankings of batsmen, bowler and all-rounder. This is a list of Test and One Day International cricket batting averages. 1 Career Test average leaders 1.1 Top 20 retired Test batsmen 1.2 Top 10 active Test batsmen 2 Career One Day International average leaders 2.1 Top 10 retired ODI batsmen 3 External links Current as of 8 February 2009 Qualification = 20 innings (1,898 Tests Source Cricinfo Statsguru). * denotes not out * denotes not out ... Top 10 Batsmen by Average in Test Cricket Richard Morgan @ Richiereds1976 ... the Yorkshireman went on to finish his career with the highest batting average ever recorded by an Englishman. ... Top 5 batsmen and their highest batting average in Test cricket. Here we look at top 5 batsmen in Test cricket and their batting average at peak. CricTracker Author. Updated - Nov 20, 2019 2:43 pm. The current top 100 Test batsmen are listed below, clicking on a player name will take you to their player page. If you want to find out the ranking of a current player who is not in the top or if you want to chart the rating of a retired player, enter their name into the search box. Test Cricket - Batting Records and Statistics - Averages / Scoring Rates Highest Batting Averages for Players Batting 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Innings for <All Countries> Afghanistan Australia Bangladesh England India Ireland New Zealand Pakistan South Africa Sri Lanka West Indies Zimbabwe Top 20 in 2020: Best Test batting in Australia since 2000. 20) Ricky Ponting v South Africa, Sydney, 2006. 19) Virender Sehwag v Australia, Melbourne, 2003. 18) David Warner v New Zealand, Hobart ... Read about Test matches, / , Records, / , Highest averages Cricket Team Records only on ESPNcricinfo.com. Check the Stats & Records of Test matches, / , Records, / , Highest averages Players in Wicket keeper Batting Bowling Read about Records, / , Test matches, / , Highest averages Cricket Team Records only on ESPNcricinfo.com. Check the Stats & Records of Records, / , Test matches, / , Highest averages Players in Wicket keeper Batting Bowling

top batting average in test cricket top

Highest Batting Average In Test Cricket Top 5 Batsman In ...

Cricket is our passion and is most popular sports game in sub continental i.e India and Pakistan. Cricket has also become among most sports games all over th... Here is the list of Test Players with highest career average. This list includes players with at-least 2000 runs in their career.10. Kumar Sangakkara (Srilan... Hi Guys:Check our New Video Top 10 Batsmen With Highest Batting Average in Test.In cricket, a player's batting average is the total number of runs they have ... A number of charts appear in succession each depicting key batting averages for a player. Freeze frame to view details.Batting average described as 'total ru... Highest batting average in test cricket . Top batsman of all time Please like share and subscribe my channel for more videos and press the bell icon. Comments below. Asslam o Aliekum Friends Highest Batting Average In Test Cricket Top 5 Batsman In Test Cricket History My Name is Abdullah Munir and in this video I will tel... Please like my videos and subscribe my YouTube channel for more cricket videos I hope that you will love my videos.Hope you guys like it and please support u... Stats from Cricinfo Statsguru. Shows the top 15 batting averages at the end of each calendar year. Highest batting averages in test cricket historyHighest test averagesTop 10 batting averages in tests .....https://www.youtube...

ICC Test Batting Rankings : Top 100 Rated Test Batsmen

top batting average in test cricket

top batting average in test cricket - win

Allrounder Supreme - Jadeja tops the list of players with the highest difference between batting and bowling averages in test cricket - last 3 years

A brief look at some hot takes from the match

Indian Cricket In The Decade 2011-20 Review.

Looking at Pant's success, did Australia miss a trick by not persisting with Maxwell in Tests?

A Statistical Analysis to Determine and Improve upon the ICC's Team of the "Decade"

Openers

Number 3

Other Top Order

All Rounder

Wicket Keeper

Seamers

Spinners

Final XI

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.

UPDATE: So I tried to look at a Z-score analysis for bowlers in test cricket

So I tried to look at a Z-score analysis for bowlers in test cricket

Treat Pant like Sehwag which is to let him bat in his own way

Best Players in the Sheffield Shield, 2018-19 to now

Batters

Bowlers

All Rounders

Correction and Feedback on a Statistical Method to Determine a Team of the "Decade"

Wicket Keeper

Spinner

Seamers

Openers

Number 3

Other Top Order Batsmen

All Rounders

Final Corrected XI:

Reverse Engineering the ICC Test Batting Rankings

The Lineal World Championship: An Alternative History of Test Cricket (Part 1/5)

top batting average in test cricket video

top batting average in test cricket top

Highest Batting Average In Test Cricket Top 5 Batsman In ...