Sachin Tendulkar and winning Test matches: Tales of farcical analysis

India have won 20 Test matches when Sachin Tendulkar has scored a century © Getty Images

Sachin Tendulkar has scored 51 hundreds in Tests. India has won 20 of these matches, drawn 20 and lost 11. This is often cited as supposed proof of his not being a match winner. Using a variation of the reduction ad absurdum form of argument, Arunabha Sengupta demonstrates why reaching such a conclusion from the data is beyond farcical.

Curious assertions
 
A few days earlier I wrote about the cognitive illusions that surround the cricket fan-space when one considers the critics of Sachin Tendulkar. Why is it that we find come across curious perceptions — his hundreds result in losses for India, he fails in crisis situations and so on — even when these assertions can be shown to be woefully false.
 
While most of the responses to the article were overwhelmingly positive across the corners of the cyberspace, there remained some voices who continued their complaints about the supposed shortcomings in the master’s match-winning abilities.
 
To make their point, these gentlemen provided some statistics as well. They pointed out that India has lost 11 of the Test matches in which Tendulkar has scored hundreds — as opposed to several other cricketers whose numbers are far better. India has won only 20 of the 51 Tests in which he has scored centuries and again, in this regard there are several who have better figures.
 
What was ignored in these assertions was the validation of the method of evaluation. Did these supposed better numbers of other cricketers indeed provide evidence of their superiority as match winners or batsmen? Are these measurements at all related to the conclusion that one wants from them?
 
There is a very popular adage which says that numbers hide more than they reveal. And no, as someone trained as a statistician I am not one who believes in this. I am of the opinion that numbers can reveal almost the entire truth. Especially when judging a domain so data rich as cricket careers, statistics provide as near a snapshot of truth as possible. The aesthetic delight of a drive or a late cut is definitely beyond the realms of measurement, but capability and performance can be evaluated almost to perfection when a sufficiently large data set is available.
 
However, there is a caveat.
 
Numbers need some care and at least basic expertise during the course of analysis and inference. Else it is extremely easy to jump to the wrong conclusions — especially conclusions which we dearly want to be true.
 
Yes, India has won 39.22 per cent of the matches in which Tendulkar has scored a hundred. The figure for Ricky Ponting is 71.05 per cent (not 73.17 per cent as offered by some, because we do need to adjust for centuries in both innings of a Test match. One of the basic mistakes in such analysis is to count the same thing twice).
 
However, in no way can it be concluded from this data that Ponting is a better match winner than Tendulkar — simply because the assessment looks at the wrong numbers to arrive at the wrong result.
 
The numbers could have been significant if and only if the rest of the parameters had been the same for these two batsmen. We can perhaps even ignore whether the two masters played against sides of the same strength and had the same batting depth in their own sides to support them. However, when it comes to comparing match-winning capabilities, this method holds water if and only if the bowling firepower to demolish the opposition was the same in both cases.
 
And that is absolutely not true. Ponting went into most of his victorious matches with Glenn McGrath, Brett Lee, Jason Gillespie and Shane Warne bowling for Australia. India never had bowlers of that quality. The average of the Australian bowlers while Ponting batted for them was 28.96. The corresponding figure for Indian bowlers with Tendulkar in the side was 35.35. The gap is too wide to even merit a comparison.
 
It is simple enough to understand. Both batsmen put runs on the board, but the Australian bowlers bowled out the opposition far more cheaply and frequently than the Indian bowlers.
 
To compare the two in this way is akin to asking two men to swim for 10 minutes, one in a pond and the other in stormy seas. And then to measure the distance covered to evaluate who the faster swimmer was. As a scientific method, this is just not valid.
 
Similarly, Brian Lara’s corresponding win percentage when he scored a century is 24.24 per cent (Not 23.53 per cent because we again adjust for centuries in both innings). That has nothing to do with either his quality or his match-winning ability. He just played for a weak side most of his career.
 
The other line of argument, that India lost 21.57 per cent of the matches in which Tendulkar scored a century (the figure is 39.39 per cent for Lara) means even less if possible.
 
I am not even sure that I understand that line of reasoning. Is it better for a batsman to get out early in a difficult situation, to avoid scoring a hundred if there is a chance of defeat? So that he can walk around the pitfall of scoring a century in a loss? Is it better to let the opposition have one’s wicket early to be evaluated as a better batsman? Or does it seem more worthwhile to fight it out to the last possible moment?
 
Somehow I think of scoring a hundred in a defeat is proof of a batsman’s resilience and not an indelible dark mark in his career. So, here, the error is in the measurement itself. We are measuring something that is totally unrelated to what we want to find out.
 
However, as I had mentioned in the previous article, these biases are so deeply rooted in the fan’s mind that nothing short of a nuclear explosion will allow truth to make any headway. So, I won’t spend too long in discussing the logic or the lack thereof.
 
As an alternative, I will try and invoke another mathematical technique to dispel the myths — something called reductio ad absurdum. In other words, we will assume that the two assertions given above are true, and show how absurd the conclusions turn out to be if we indeed consider them to be correct.

Absurdity #1
 
So, let us assume that percentage of wins in the matches in which a batsman scores a hundred is indeed an important indicator of his match-winning capabilities.
 
Hence, India’s 20 wins in Tendulkar’s 51 Tests as centurion gives him a winning percentage of 39.22 per cent. Let us assume that it is indeed bad.

With this assumption we arrive at the following absurd conclusions (check Table 1 in the appendix to verify):
 
1.  Adam Gilchrist (82.35 per cent wins in matches he scored a century) ends up as a greater match winner than Don Bradman (78.57 per cent), Greg Chappell (59.09 per cent), Viv Richards (a surprising 50 per cent), Herbert Sutcliffe (50.00 per cent), Jack Hobbs (46.67 per cent), Garry Sobers (44.00 per cent), Wally Hammond(42.86 per cent), Len Hutton (42.11 per cent), Tendulkar, Brian Lara (24.24 per cent) and every other supreme batsman to have ever walked the earth.
 
2.  Michael Slater and Matthew Hayden (78.57 per cent) are at par with Don Bradman — as great match winner as The Don. Steve Waugh (78.13 per cent) is just inches behind the great man with Damien Martyn (76.92 per cent) and Mark Waugh (75 per cent) following closely. The list of batsmen with far less match-winning capability than these Aussie stalwarts again include Richards, Tendulkar, Greg Chappell, Sobers, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hutton, Lara … even Ponting (71.05 per cent).
 
3.  Perhaps the fallacy is clear now. The Waughs played for the best side of the world. Ponting’s career continued to the period when they were winning less frequently. Hence Gilchrist, Hayden, Martyn and the Waughs actually rank above Ponting. Michael Clarke, currently at the helm of a weaker side, ends up far below his former teammates with 54.17 per cent.
 
4.  Ian Bell (70 per cent) and Graeme Smith (66.67 per cent) are way above Sobers, Richards, Chappell, Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Lara and Tendulkar. So are Thilan Samaraweera (64.29 per cent), Ashwell Prince (63.64 per cent) and Simon Katich (60 per cent).
 
5.  Some other batsmen above  Sobers, Richards, Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Lara and Tendulkar are. Mark Taylor (57.14 per cent), Herschelle Gibbs (57.14 per cent), Ian Botham (57.14 per cent), Graham Thorpe (56.25 per cent), Larry Gomes (55.56 per cent), Andrew Strauss (55.00 per cent)
 
6.  Gautam Gambhir (44.44 per cent) ends up inches in front of Garry Sobers (44 per cent)!!!
 
7.  Some of the worst batsmen of the world thrown up by this method of evaluation turn out to be Clyde Walcott (23.08 per cent), Allan Border (20.00 per cent), Sunil Gavaskar (19.35 per cent), Martin Crowe (11.76 per cent) and Hanif Mohammad (9.09 per cent). Ravi Shastri (9.09 per cent) ends up at par with Hanif.
 
Why does Viv Richards end up so low on the list when he played for one of the greatest West Indian sides? It is because he committed the grave mistake of scoring even in those rare matches of that era in which his side was not winning. Something Gordon Greenidge had the sense not to indulge in. Desmond Haynes, Clive Lloyd and Larry Gomes did make that blunder but on fewer occasions. Hence all of them ended up above Richards in the table.
 
One can have endless fun in reaching absurd conclusions by looking at Table 1 given in the Appendix.
 
I guess by now one is sufficiently convinced that this method of measurement — so convenient and close to the heart of several adherents — is actually one of the weirdest possible techniques to judge batsmen.
 
Let us move on to the second absurdity:

Absurdity #2
 
Let us assume that losing a match in which a batsman scores a hundred is indeed a dark shadow on his career. Hence, with India managing to win or draw just 78.43 per cent matches in which Tendulkar scored a hundred, indeed makes the master fall short of greatness. So, let us now see who tops the list in this system of measurement. (See Table 2 of the appendix.)
 
In fact this technique produces delightfully quixotic results.
 
1.  Among the ones with a spotless 100 per cent record (not losing any match on scoring a century) are Slater, Greenidge, Bell, Graeme Smith, Alec Stewart,  Gambhir, John Edrich, Mudassar Nazar, Saleem Malik, Gundappa Viswanath and Sourav Ganguly!

2.  According to this method of looking at the merit of a batsman, all the gentlemen mentioned above end up higher in the list than Bradman (92.86 per cent) Viv Richards (91.67 per cent), Greg Chappell (90.91 per cent), Sobers (96 per cent), Hobbs (60 per cent), Sutcliffe (78.57 per cent) and the rest.
 
3.  Bradman finishes just behind Michael Atherton. So, if you believe in this method of evaluation, the next time you don’t want to lose a Test, be sure to choose Atherton over The Don!
 
4.  Viv Richards ends in a tie with John Wright!
 
5.  Specifically interesting in the table are the left-handers. While Gambhir and Ganguly pip Sobers for the top spot, Lara ends up very near the bottom. The last in the list is that indomitable fighter called Andy Flower.
 
6.  Jack Hobbs finishes third from the bottom. Rohan Kanhai, Clyde Walcott, George Headley, Denis Compton are some of the wonderful cricketers to end up in the last few positions.
 
Reading the list from the bottom, one comes across some of the greatest fighters ever witnessed in the game. Indeed, this just underlines my earlier contention that scoring a century in a losing cause is an approximate mark of resilience and combative ability of a batsman.
 
Again, please feel free to enjoy the absurdity of the ranking in Table 2 of the appendix.
 
I hope it is clear that the absurdity value of the second technique actually goes beyond the first one.

The exercise is non-trivial
 
In that case how do we evaluate match-winning abilities?
 
In a team game, with different teams and strengths of opposition in every match, this is not as trivial an exercise as counting number of hundreds.
 
One way is to consider each individual match. The bowlers and batsmen involved from each side can be rated with some measures for quality based on their career records, thereby deriving the relative strengths of the side. The runs scored by the batsman in the match, along with the strength difference of the sides and the ultimate result can be tabulated. After doing this for the entire career, statistical techniques — rather more sophisticated than century count or batting average — can be used to evaluate the performance of the batsman.
 
Again, there is a fundamental error in just looking at centuries in won matches or match-winning innings. One has to consider all the similar scenarios to document where a person failed to play a match winning innings as well.
 
As I mentioned, it is not exactly a trivial exercise.
 
But, by now we do know that the method of judging the quality of a batsman or his match-winning ability using century count and percentages is beyond farcical.

Appendix
 
Table 1 — Centuries in winning causes
 
(The contention of the article is that judging a batsman based on this criterion is NOT meaningful)
 

Batsman 100s M Wins Win %
AC Gilchrist (Aus) 17 17 14 82.35%
DG Bradman (Aus) 29 28 22 78.57%
MJ Slater (Aus) 14 14 11 78.57%
ML Hayden (Aus) 30 28 22 78.57%
SR Waugh (Aus) 32 32 25 78.13%
DR Martyn (Aus) 13 13 10 76.92%
ME Waugh (Aus) 20 20 15 75.00%
Saeed Anwar (Pak) 11 11 8 72.73%
CG Greenidge (WI) 19 18 13 72.22%
RT Ponting (Aus) 41 38 27 71.05%
IR Bell (Eng) 20 20 14 70.00%
AL Hassett (Aus) 10 10 7 70.00%
Inzamam-ul-Haq (ICC/Pak) 25 25 17 68.00%
AB de Villiers (SA) 17 18 12 66.67%
GC Smith (ICC/SA) 27 27 18 66.67%
RB Simpson (Aus) 10 9 6 66.67%
JL Langer (Aus) 23 23 15 65.22%
DJ Cullinan (SA) 14 14 9 64.29%
TT Samaraweera (SL) 14 14 9 64.29%
AG Prince (SA) 11 11 7 63.64%
MEK Hussey (Aus) 19 19 12 63.16%
ME Trescothick (Eng) 14 13 8 61.54%
SM Katich (Aus) 10 10 6 60.00%
GS Chappell (Aus) 24 22 13 59.09%
AR Morris (Aus) 12 12 7 58.33%
MA Taylor (Aus) 19 19 11 57.89%
RN Harvey (Aus) 21 21 12 57.14%
HH Gibbs (SA) 14 14 8 57.14%
IT Botham (Eng) 14 14 8 57.14%
GP Thorpe (Eng) 16 16 9 56.25%
RB Richardson (WI) 16 16 9 56.25%
KC Sangakkara (SL) 33 32 18 56.25%
DL Haynes (WI) 18 18 10 55.56%
HA Gomes (WI) 9 9 5 55.56%
AJ Strauss (Eng) 21 20 11 55.00%
MJ Clarke (Aus) 24 24 13 54.17%
WM Lawry (Aus) 13 13 7 53.85%
CH Lloyd (WI) 19 19 10 52.63%
HM Amla (SA) 20 19 10 52.63%
G Kirsten (SA) 21 21 11 52.38%
AN Cook (Eng) 25 25 13 52.00%
IVA Richards (WI) 24 24 12 50.00%
N Hussain (Eng) 14 14 7 50.00%
ST Jayasuriya (SL) 14 14 7 50.00%
H Sutcliffe (Eng) 16 14 7 50.00%
DPMD Jayawardene (SL) 31 31 15 48.39%
KP Pietersen (Eng) 23 23 11 47.83%
JH Kallis (ICC/SA) 44 42 20 47.62%
JB Hobbs (Eng) 15 15 7 46.67%
PBH May (Eng) 13 13 6 46.15%
G Boycott (Eng) 22 22 10 45.45%
MC Cowdrey (Eng) 22 22 10 45.45%
Younis Khan (Pak) 22 22 10 45.45%
HP Tillakaratne (SL) 11 11 5 45.45%
G Gambhir (India) 9 9 4 44.44%
GS Sobers (WI) 26 25 11 44.00%
MS Atapattu (SL) 16 16 7 43.75%
AJ Stewart (Eng) 15 14 6 42.86%
KD Walters (Aus) 15 14 6 42.86%
WR Hammond (Eng) 22 21 9 42.86%
DC Boon (Aus) 21 21 9 42.86%
GA Gooch (Eng) 20 19 8 42.11%
L Hutton (Eng) 19 19 8 42.11%
Ijaz Ahmed (Pak) 12 12 5 41.67%
JH Edrich (Eng) 12 12 5 41.67%
Zaheer Abbas (Pak) 12 12 5 41.67%
R Dravid (ICC/India) 36 34 14 41.18%
VVS Laxman (India) 17 17 7 41.18%
Javed Miandad (Pak) 23 22 9 40.91%
TM Dilshan (SL) 16 15 6 40.00%
KF Barrington (Eng) 20 20 8 40.00%
Mudassar Nazar (Pak) 10 10 4 40.00%
DM Jones (Aus) 11 10 4 40.00%
SR Tendulkar (India) 51 51 20 39.22%
IM Chappell (Aus) 14 13 5 38.46%
GA Headley (WI) 10 8 3 37.50%
TW Graveney (Eng) 11 11 4 36.36%
S Chanderpaul (WI) 28 28 10 35.71%
ED Weekes (WI) 15 14 5 35.71%
RB Kanhai (WI) 15 14 5 35.71%
V Sehwag (ICC/India) 23 23 8 34.78%
DI Gower (Eng) 18 18 6 33.33%
RR Sarwan (WI) 15 15 5 33.33%
Saleem Malik (Pak) 15 15 5 33.33%
AI Kallicharran (WI) 12 12 4 33.33%
FMM Worrell (WI) 9 9 3 33.33%
GM Wood (Aus) 9 9 3 33.33%
Mohammad Yousuf (Pak) 24 23 7 30.43%
PA de Silva (SL) 20 20 6 30.00%
Mushtaq Mohammad (Pak) 10 10 3 30.00%
MW Gatting (Eng) 10 10 3 30.00%
MP Vaughan (Eng) 18 17 5 29.41%
AJ Lamb (Eng) 14 14 4 28.57%
GR Viswanath (India) 14 14 4 28.57%
Asif Iqbal (Pak) 11 11 3 27.27%
DL Amiss (Eng) 11 11 3 27.27%
CH Gayle (WI) 15 15 4 26.67%
MA Atherton (Eng) 16 16 4 25.00%
SC Ganguly (India) 16 16 4 25.00%
DCS Compton (Eng) 17 16 4 25.00%
BC Lara (ICC/WI) 34 33 8 24.24%
DB Vengsarkar (India) 17 17 4 23.53%
CL Hooper (WI) 13 13 3 23.08%
CL Walcott (WI) 15 13 3 23.08%
M Azharuddin (India) 22 22 5 22.73%
ER Dexter (Eng) 9 10 2 20.00%
PD Collingwood (Eng) 10 10 2 20.00%
AR Border (Aus) 27 25 5 20.00%
SM Gavaskar (India) 34 31 6 19.35%
NJ Astle (NZ) 11 11 2 18.18%
A Flower (Zim) 12 11 2 18.18%
JG Wright (NZ) 12 12 2 16.67%
PR Umrigar (India) 12 12 2 16.67%
MD Crowe (NZ) 17 17 2 11.76%
AD Nourse (SA) 9 9 1 11.11%
M Amarnath (India) 11 11 1 9.09%
RJ Shastri (India) 11 11 1 9.09%
Hanif Mohammad (Pak) 12 11 1 9.09%

 
 
Table 2 — Centuries in non-losing causes
 
(The contention of the article is that judging a batsman based on this criterion is NOT meaningful)
 

Batsman 100s M Losses % Not Lost
MJ Slater (Aus) 14 14 0 100.00%
CG Greenidge (WI) 19 18 0 100.00%
IR Bell (Eng) 20 20 0 100.00%
AL Hassett (Aus) 10 10 0 100.00%
GC Smith (ICC/SA) 27 27 0 100.00%
RB Simpson (Aus) 10 9 0 100.00%
AR Morris (Aus) 12 12 0 100.00%
AJ Stewart (Eng) 15 14 0 100.00%
KD Walters (Aus) 15 14 0 100.00%
G Boycott (Eng) 22 22 0 100.00%
WR Hammond (Eng) 22 21 0 100.00%
G Gambhir (India) 9 9 0 100.00%
JH Edrich (Eng) 12 12 0 100.00%
Zaheer Abbas (Pak) 12 12 0 100.00%
Mudassar Nazar (Pak) 10 10 0 100.00%
ED Weekes (WI) 15 14 0 100.00%
Saleem Malik (Pak) 15 15 0 100.00%
GR Viswanath (India) 14 14 0 100.00%
SC Ganguly (India) 16 16 0 100.00%
Hanif Mohammad (Pak) 12 11 0 100.00%
GS Sobers (WI) 26 25 1 96.00%
JL Langer (Aus) 23 23 1 95.65%
KP Pietersen (Eng) 23 23 1 95.65%
MC Cowdrey (Eng) 22 22 1 95.45%
Javed Miandad (Pak) 23 22 1 95.45%
RN Harvey (Aus) 21 21 1 95.24%
G Kirsten (SA) 21 21 1 95.24%
ME Waugh (Aus) 20 20 1 95.00%
AJ Strauss (Eng) 21 20 1 95.00%
KF Barrington (Eng) 20 20 1 95.00%
MEK Hussey (Aus) 19 19 1 94.74%
MA Taylor (Aus) 19 19 1 94.74%
AC Gilchrist (Aus) 17 17 1 94.12%
MA Atherton (Eng) 16 16 1 93.75%
DG Bradman (Aus) 29 28 2 92.86%
ML Hayden (Aus) 30 28 2 92.86%
DJ Cullinan (SA) 14 14 1 92.86%
IT Botham (Eng) 14 14 1 92.86%
JH Kallis (ICC/SA) 44 42 3 92.86%
DR Martyn (Aus) 13 13 1 92.31%
Inzamam-ul-Haq (ICC/Pak) 25 25 2 92.00%
IVA Richards (WI) 24 24 2 91.67%
JG Wright (NZ) 12 12 1 91.67%
AG Prince (SA) 11 11 1 90.91%
GS Chappell (Aus) 24 22 2 90.91%
TW Graveney (Eng) 11 11 1 90.91%
M Amarnath (India) 11 11 1 90.91%
DC Boon (Aus) 21 21 2 90.48%
SM Katich (Aus) 10 10 1 90.00%
DM Jones (Aus) 11 10 1 90.00%
PA de Silva (SL) 20 20 2 90.00%
Mushtaq Mohammad (Pak) 10 10 1 90.00%
MW Gatting (Eng) 10 10 1 90.00%
ER Dexter (Eng) 9 10 1 90.00%
RT Ponting (Aus) 41 38 4 89.47%
CH Lloyd (WI) 19 19 2 89.47%
AB de Villiers (SA) 17 18 2 88.89%
HA Gomes (WI) 9 9 1 88.89%
FMM Worrell (WI) 9 9 1 88.89%
R Dravid (ICC/India) 36 34 4 88.24%
VVS Laxman (India) 17 17 2 88.24%
DB Vengsarkar (India) 17 17 2 88.24%
GP Thorpe (Eng) 16 16 2 87.50%
RB Richardson (WI) 16 16 2 87.50%
KC Sangakkara (SL) 33 32 4 87.50%
MJ Clarke (Aus) 24 24 3 87.50%
MS Atapattu (SL) 16 16 2 87.50%
TT Samaraweera (SL) 14 14 2 85.71%
HH Gibbs (SA) 14 14 2 85.71%
WM Lawry (Aus) 13 13 2 84.62%
PBH May (Eng) 13 13 2 84.62%
CL Hooper (WI) 13 13 2 84.62%
SR Waugh (Aus) 32 32 5 84.38%
HM Amla (SA) 20 19 3 84.21%
GA Gooch (Eng) 20 19 3 84.21%
L Hutton (Eng) 19 19 3 84.21%
AN Cook (Eng) 25 25 4 84.00%
DPMD Jayawardene (SL) 31 31 5 83.87%
SM Gavaskar (India) 34 31 5 83.87%
DL Haynes (WI) 18 18 3 83.33%
Ijaz Ahmed (Pak) 12 12 2 83.33%
AI Kallicharran (WI) 12 12 2 83.33%
PR Umrigar (India) 12 12 2 83.33%
MD Crowe (NZ) 17 17 3 82.35%
Saeed Anwar (Pak) 11 11 2 81.82%
HP Tillakaratne (SL) 11 11 2 81.82%
DL Amiss (Eng) 11 11 2 81.82%
NJ Astle (NZ) 11 11 2 81.82%
RJ Shastri (India) 11 11 2 81.82%
DCS Compton (Eng) 17 16 3 81.25%
TM Dilshan (SL) 16 15 3 80.00%
CH Gayle (WI) 15 15 3 80.00%
AR Border (Aus) 27 25 5 80.00%
ST Jayasuriya (SL) 14 14 3 78.57%
H Sutcliffe (Eng) 16 14 3 78.57%
SR Tendulkar (India) 51 51 11 78.43%
V Sehwag (ICC/India) 23 23 5 78.26%
DI Gower (Eng) 18 18 4 77.78%
AD Nourse (SA) 9 9 2 77.78%
Younis Khan (Pak) 22 22 5 77.27%
ME Trescothick (Eng) 14 13 3 76.92%
IM Chappell (Aus) 14 13 3 76.92%
CL Walcott (WI) 15 13 3 76.92%
MP Vaughan (Eng) 18 17 4 76.47%
GA Headley (WI) 10 8 2 75.00%
Asif Iqbal (Pak) 11 11 3 72.73%
N Hussain (Eng) 14 14 4 71.43%
S Chanderpaul (WI) 28 28 8 71.43%
RB Kanhai (WI) 15 14 4 71.43%
PD Collingwood (Eng) 10 10 3 70.00%
M Azharuddin (India) 22 22 7 68.18%
RR Sarwan (WI) 15 15 5 66.67%
GM Wood (Aus) 9 9 3 66.67%
Mohammad Yousuf (Pak) 24 23 8 65.22%
BC Lara (ICC/WI) 34 33 13 60.61%
JB Hobbs (Eng) 15 15 6 60.00%
AJ Lamb (Eng) 14 14 6 57.14%
A Flower (Zim) 12 11 6 45.45%

(Arunabha Sengupta is a cricket historian and Chief Cricket Writer at CricketCountry. He writes about the history and the romance of the game, punctuated often by opinions about modern day cricket, while his post-graduate degree in statistics peeps through in occasional analytical pieces. The author of three novels, he can be followed on Twitter at http://twiter.com/senantix)