The real value of runs made lies in how they ultimately influenced your team’s chances of actually winning the match.
Consider these four imaginary batsmen.
Batsman A scores 44 not out at number 6 in a team total of 4 for 657 declared in which three batsmen make massive centuries. They win by an innings and 248 runs.
Batsman B is an opener who hogs the strike to score 44 not out chasing 55 to win in the fourth innings in a match his team has completely dominated from ball one. They win by 9 or 10 wickets.
Batsman C scores 44 (out) as his team’s highest score in a match won by 38 runs in which all 40 wickets fall.
Batsman D scores 44 (also out) as his team’s second highest score in a match involving a two-wicket victory where all 30 wickets fell prior to the fourth innings chase.
Which of the four has contributed most to his team’s potential success? Quite clearly, Batsman C, followed by Batsman D.
We can comfortably say that Batsmen A and B, both in scoring 44 not out, increased their team’s chance of victory by a massive 0 per cent. In the case of Batsman B, victory was as certain as the sun rising in the east, while in the case of Batsman A, defeat was as likely as celestial bodies suddenly changing to a clockwise direction of orbit.
What effect did Travis Head’s runs exert on Australia’s fortunes in the recently concluded first Test of the 2021-22 Ashes series?
The much-maligned Chappelli was just a touch uncharitable, in my opinion, when he allegedly said words to the effect of “Doesn’t really impress me – he made the runs when they weren’t really needed.”
The reality is that the match was potentially in the balance when debutante Alex Carey joined Head, who was yet to score.
Under the Renato Carini school of Test cricket, for a match to be in equilibrium at the completion of both teams’ first innings, the team that batted second needs to be leading by 50 runs.
This is an extremely sound principle, though it could certainly vary up or down depending on conditions and the difference in strength between the two teams. I believe 50 to be about right for the recent Brisbane Test.
Head wasn’t under any particular pressure when he went in at 3 for +42 in the second innings of the match. However, this soon changed when top scorer, Warner, was dismissed soon after (Head went in) and then Green was out first ball.
Suddenly, it is 5 for +48 with a debutante, Alex Carey, joining him. There was every chance that England could knock over both, and then the tail, to restrict Australia’s lead to around 60-70. A lead of 65, when bowled out, would have perhaps given Australia a 55per cent chance of winning.
Therefore, we can say that the match was in the balance when Cary joined Head, who was yet to score. At that point, Australia was probably about 60 per cent chance of winning. By the time Carey was sixth out, 41 runs later, the lead was now 89, so the pressure had relaxed from standard to mild. The other level of pressure, not at play on this particular day, is extreme.
Travis Head (Photo by Matt Roberts – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
The ball before Carey was dismissed, Australia’s victory chances were probably in the 75-80 per cent range, his dismissal dropped it back to around 70 per cent, still clear of the 60 per cent when they came together.
By the time Head reached his ton, with the lead now 170-175, and 7 wickets down, Australia’s chances of victory were about 95-99 per cent. Had Australia declared at this point, England would then have needed to score at least 375 in the third innings of the match to leave a fourth innings run chase in an even game situation.
Head’s first 100 runs probably raised Australia’s victory chances by about 35-39per cent and that is not to be scoffed at. Batting on for another 100 or so to the lead, and of course 50 odd for Head’s personal tally, probably only further increased the chances of victory by no more than about 1 solitary subsequent per cent, with an equal solitary 1 per cent remaining for a draw.
Australia led by 196 with three wickets standing at stumps on day 2. Had they declared on that total, then, all else being equal, England would have reached 2 for +24 early in the third session of Day 3, and the inevitable collapse occurs in the final session of the day.
Then Australia is left with the elementary target of approximately 102 which still takes them until just after lunch on day 4, and maybe they lose 2 or 3 wickets instead of just 1.
Head’s first 90-100 runs were extremely valuable, while the last 50 or so (of Head’s 152 runs) contributed nothing more than increasing the victory margin from 7 or 8 wickets to 9 wickets.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Ahhhm ... yes it is. Only 6 times in the history of test cricket has a team lost after leading by 200 or more and indeed there is a context for 4-5 of those occasions. Losses after leading by 150-199 are also rare and indeed the 100-149 range are also considered great come from behind wins. What a ridiculous ignorant statement that last sentence of yours.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Sorry, I missed this back all those months ago: in 145 years of test cricket, only 6 times has a team won from 200 or more behind and there is context for 4-5 of those occasions. I don't know how many there have been in the 150-199 range but I can't remember too many in the 40 years I've been following the game. Even 100-149 range are rare - that's why they are considered all time great come from behind victories when they happen. Only 4 times has a team successfully chased 400 or more, highest 418, only a further 8 times in the 350-399 range and indeed only a further 26 times in the 300-349 range. Again, even 250-299 have been in the genuine minority in those same 40 years. Not sure where you got the idea I had not done any 'data mining'?????
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Head has my support for the rest of the series, and I do not expect him to perform every single time, nor do I expect that from anybody. He did well in the recent test under standard to mild pressure so a tick. Now I want to see him perform coming in at 3 for 50, and then slumping to 4 for 80 or even 4 for 100, batting first or second. That is extreme pressure. What I would really like to see from Head is an innings of the quality of Mark Waugh’s 88 in Hobart against a high-class Pakistan attack in 1995-96. In bowler friendly conditions, he came in at 2 for 68 around lunch on first day and lost partners at 111, 156, 156, 209, 235 before being 8th out at 238. Next top score was 40, and Australia’s 267 was a match winning total in the conditions. That is pure class, and he repeated the performance batting second in the following test for 116, but the 88 was better because it turned out to be the deciding test, while the 116 was in a dead rubber and Australia lost, the one and only time in 20 that anyone could claim with any hope of any semblance of credibility that him not going on to a monster hundred cost his team.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
True, the best laid plans of mice n men, hey. But you'll agree that that's what's supposed to happen. But if it did hapoen everytime 4, 5 & 6 would not get an opportunity.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
They don't always do it though.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
The Top 3 have always done that for 4, 5 & 6 .... or at least that is a time-honoured standard that has been observed over a long time.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
As had Matthew Elliott in Johannesburg in 1997, but few will admit to that one.
Charlie
Roar Rookie
It's funny, but I always thought a greater demonstration of lack of intellect was to ignore facts to suit your own argument. Given that the Cambridge English dictionary defines intellect as "the ability to understand and to think in an intelligent way", to continually ignore facts demonstrates not only a lack of intellect, but also a high level of arrogance and vanity. The history of sport, not just cricket, is littered with amazing comebacks from impossible situations - Carlton in the 1970 Grand Final, Australia II in the America's Cup, Greg Lougainis after he hit his head, "Kingston Town can't win", Botham at Headingly, the Miracle on Ice, Nick Faldo at the 1996 US Masters - the list goes on and is one of the reasons that sport is so compelling. To discount comebacks like these does a great disservice to both you and your argument. However, I digress. The real argument is whether Head's last 50 or so runs had any value. What effect did they have on England's mental and physical fitness at the time and for the rest of the match? What effect did they have on Australia's confidence? What effect did they have on Head's confidence for the rest of the series? What about England's mental and physical fitness for the rest of the series? These are all questions that your argument does not and can not answer.
Rohan
Roar Rookie
Yes, Warner and Labuschagne had definitely blunted the bowling.
Rohan
Roar Rookie
It was a great knock, no doubt. I would question whether he faced the best bowlers, to which has has previously been vulnerable.
matth
Roar Guru
After Root and Malan we had Stokes average of say 33, Pope 30, Buttler 32, Woakes say 25, and tail 12 each = 156. I think they scored around 65 between them. So if Heads last 50 = teams runs of 90 or so, did not exist, and if England’s remaining batting after Root and Malan had performed to expectations, we could have seen a fourth innings target of say 200. And nobody could know at 2 for 220 odd that the remaining English batting would underperform so badly, especially with Hazlewood injured. Therefore Head’s remaining runs had value. You yourself have used the ‘they would have / should have scored xxx runs’ previously. The captain had to protect against that possibility and because the test had moved so quickly he had more than enough time to bat in an take another 10 wickets. Plus Head likely finished the job of belting Leach out of the series, left Stokes bowling injured, Robinson cooked and the entire opposition demoralized, and cost them their entire match fee and 5 WTC points for slow over rates.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
True, but then again England HAD put on a partnership of 200 plus, which indicated England may have had the ability to then push on further based on immediate past performances. And really, they should have on that wicket early day 4.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
But that's part of the issue in these discussions isn't it? It may be rare, but never impossible. And therefore while there remains "some" hope, players of both sides will still be exerting "their all" to either fight back or put the foot down, which I think is where the contention arises re "hindsight" and assessing performances (runs/wickets) as potentially meaningless beyond the "decisive point". That is, players may still be trying their hardest and feel under pressure beyond what the eventual decisive point may have been in retrospect.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
England would have needed to wipe off the 58 remaining deficit without further loss to reach a real score of 2 for 0 – hardly England’s momentum, given it’s taken a 200 plus partnership to reach a real score that would see a team batting on the first morning absolutely reeling. Then they would need to get 100 in front with no more than 1 or 2 further wickets, and then they would need a super human batting performance from Stokes to get to 250 in front for the odds to be anywhere near in England’s favour. So, from overnight, after a partnership of 159, they needed a further 158 for no more than two more wickets, and then a super human performance from Stokes. Buckley’s chance. Only six times in 145 years has a team won after trailing by 200 or more, two of those were minnows too inexperienced to close it out, another was thrown, and two of the remaining three required super human, once in a career performances from phenomenal players.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
In fairness, the author did call it on the live blog day 2. I think Bernie said when Head was 60-80 or thereabouts at the time. Now, I still require further convincing, as whilst "the odds" would suggest England wouldn't pull off the win, that remains far from being certain IMO. A different morning day 4 against the old ball would have shifted things quite materially I believe. And so in that respect I still consider the match live in real time beyond that point on day 2; that is, the players were still "putting in their all" on the basis the match outcome was unknown. Will be interesting to see the live calls for the remaining Tests.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
No that’s alright AMD … The starting point is the 328 target they were set. There have only been 4 successful run chases over 400 (highest 418), a further 8 between 350-399 and another 26 between 300-349. So, from that perspective, not very high odds, especially as it was at a ground Australia had not lost at for more than 30 years. The next thing to consider is that Australia led by 33 on first innings, which is a virtual 83 if we apply the 50 figure that the team batting second needs to lead by for an even game. So, again, odds against India. Next consideration is that the scores declined in the first three innings from 369, 336 to 294 – in such matches, it is rare for the 4th innings score to trump all three, so, again, odds against India. Finally, in reply to their own 369, Australia had India 6 for 186 and then let them off the hook, and this is what gave India any sort of life-line, but, in light of the previous three paragraphs, this did not put India in the box seat, annoying as it was. I can’t give an exact percentage for the likelihood of an Indian win, but certainly well and truly below 50%, even from the start of the final day. It qualifies as one of the all-time great wins against the odds, and such wins only earn such a tag because they happen so rarely. However, exceptions do not disprove general rules. Finally, it is worth considering that in 1981, Australia failed in three elementary run chases below 152 within five tests and this was an obscenity at the height of the constant captaincy swapping back and forth between Greg Chappell and Kim Hughes. From Headingly 2019 until Brisbane January 2021, Australia failed three times in 12 tests to bowl out the opposition when setting 325 plus, and lost two of those, out of the aforementioned total 26 such occasions for any team in the 145 years of test cricket. This was at the back end of Tim Paine’s captaincy.
Redcap
Roar Guru
Thanks for this OUTR, "for a match to be in equilibrium at the completion of both teams’ first innings, the team that batted second needs to be leading by 50 runs" Just out of interest, and not trying to prove or disprove anything, what probability would you assign to India winning last year's Gabba test after the first innings?
Ball Burster
Roar Rookie
This meets the tests of foresight: you certainly called it. The difficulty is that you don't factor in the psychological effect of running down 150 rather than 278 at 2/220
MxDay
Roar Rookie
If you feel like data mining you could just grab all the test results and then do an analysis of what % of result was win/lose/draw for the different size leads after the second innings is done. It still won't be perfect but it would be something to point to. And if you really feel like it you can do team by team analysis. ----------- Even if that was done all anyone would be able to say is that when team X was y runs in the lead we could say that there was a Z likelihood that they would win based in this set of previous results. Anything beyond that is just opinion and speculation, regardless if how clever and qualified the reasoning is.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
Pretty dam valuable I reckon