Overall TEST matches win/loss counts for all teams

[sohaib17]

hi guys as i have been told or ordered by mr OXY not to post rohit bhai article over here there's not much to do without it but just i found a interesting stats about overall test matches played by all countries and the amount of win and loss

Test matches

Team 	Span 	        Mat 	           Won 	Lost 	Tied 	Draw 	W/L 	%W 	%L 	%D
Australia 	1877-2007 	687 	320 	178 	2 	187 	1.79 	46.57 	25.90 	27.21
Bangladesh 	2000-2007 	48 	1 	42 	0 	5 	0.02 	2.08 	87.50 	10.41
England 	1877-2007 	861 	301 	250 	0 	310 	1.20 	34.95 	29.03 	36.00
ICC World XI 	2005-2005 	1 	0 	1 	0 	0 	0.00 	0.00 	100.00 	0.00
India 	1932-2007 	       405 	 90 	131 	1 	183 	0.68 	22.22 	32.34 	45.18
New Zealand 	1930-2006 	332 	62 	131 	0 	139 	0.47 	18.67 	39.45 	41.86
Pakistan 	1952-2007 	330 	103 	87 	0 	140 	1.18 	31.21 	26.36 	42.42
South Africa 	1889-2007 	320 	105 	115 	0 	100 	0.91 	32.81 	35.93 	31.25
Sri Lanka 	1982-2007 	169 	49 	63 	0 	57 	0.77 	28.99 	37.27 	33.72
West Indies 	1928-2007 	440 	149 	141 	1 	149 	1.05 	33.86 	32.04 	33.86
Zimbabwe 	1992-2005 	83 	8 	49 	0 	26 	0.16 	9.63 	59.03 	31.32

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engv...d=1;type=class

if the stast are not clear plz go to the link to see

Australia are far ahead with most wins 320 wins in 687 matches but looking at Pakistan record 103 wins in 330 matches with only 87 lost

whereas India only 90 wins in 405 matches woow thats very low with 131 lost.........

i thought india was very good at Test matches cause i know India sucks in ODI matches

[Ghoshtbuster]

Just confirms Oz are miles ahead.


Interesting to note Sri Lanka have a much lower draw% that both pak and ind. I wonder what the reason could be? Pitches produce more results? Or the team just wasnt as strong?

[Plasma]

we are not far from being #2 in the test side. England have W/L ratio of 1.20 and pakistan's is 1.18... So before the end of the season we might be #2. ANd how come we play so little cricket? look at South Africa, they started test cricket in 1989 and have already 320 tests. While Pakistan Started in 1952 yet we only have played 330 tests...

[Oxy]

Plasma - South Africa played plenty of tests before they were exiled due to Apartheid - lasted about 20 odd years.

Thjey were playing cricket 50 years before Pakistan was even created!

[kablooee87]

Won't be surprised to see West Indies drop below 1.0 in the W/L ratio an a couple of years. That would lean Pakistan, England and Australia as the only teams above 1.0.

[sohaib17]

i think Pakistan is much better in test apart from Australia and knowing that England use to play against non test nations in when a team want to become a test nation



I think we can see Pak as second best inn just 8 to 10 months time

[P4K1 #1]

inshallah thats all

[Hassaan]

WOW,I cant believe that INDIA has a losing record I thought they were good,Australia has a very good and excellent record most likely as always,than I am very happy and shocked with our record we have a winnin record with 103 win and 87 losses

[Plasma]

Originally Posted by Oxy Plasma - South Africa played plenty of tests before they were exiled due to Apartheid - lasted about 20 odd years. Thjey were playing cricket 50 years before Pakistan was even created!

oh ok, thanks i didn't know that.

[Big Harvey]

Originally Posted by Ghoshtbuster Interesting to note Sri Lanka have a much lower draw% that both pak and ind. I wonder what the reason could be? Pitches produce more results? Or the team just wasnt as strong?

I think it's probably just that SL (being relatively new on the scene) have played a bigger proportion of their matches during an era when Test cricket has been more positive, and there have been fewer draws.

[PlanetPakistan]

Originally Posted by Big Harvey I think it's probably just that SL (being relatively new on the scene) have played a bigger proportion of their matches during an era when Test cricket has been more positive, and there have been fewer draws.

yeah that's exactly why.
I think ENG will continue to be #2 for a while because we have a tough schedule ahead of us and ENG don't play the Ashes until 2009.

[cosine]

the stats are a bit skewed. For India, they should start after 1947 instead it starts at 1932.

India has been improving their W/L ratio steadily. Here's a list of the last 100,90,80,etc matches and their W/L ratio

India W/L ratio in last decade

[last # matches]-[W/L ratio]
100-1.10
90-1.14
80-1.25
70-1.42
60-1.64
50-1.46
40-1.78
30-2.17
20-2.00
10-1.00


On the other hand, Pak have stayed the same but have a poor W/L ratio in the last decade

[last # matches]-[W/L ratio]
100-1.18
90-1.16
80-1.07
70-1.12
60-1.18
50-1.16
40-1.07
30-0.92
20-1.33
10-0.62

[ahsan17]

Originally Posted by cosine the stats are a bit skewed. For India, they should start after 1947 instead it starts at 1932.

Actually it is correct that India starts at 1932 since thats when they started playing test cricket. 1947 was when they were seperated from Pakistan, but they started playing cricket long before.

[cosine]

Originally Posted by ahsan17 Actually it is correct that India starts at 1932 since thats when they started playing test cricket. 1947 was when they were seperated from Pakistan, but they started playing cricket long before.

err... Maybe that era from 1932-1947 should be called undivided India.

The losses that occurred in that era are wrongly added to India's record only.

[Monsee]

Originally Posted by cosine err... Maybe that era from 1932-1947 should be called undivided India. The losses that occurred in that era are wrongly added to India's record only.

WRONG...because in that era, they had a better/strong team which included both Muslim and Hindu/Sikh players...

That team also included M. Nisar the only ever real fast bowler to date!

[PlanetPakistan]

Cosine i am not quite sure about your stats because M Yousuf(a player who has consistently played for PAK in the last 10 years) has been a part of the winning team of 32 times and part of the losing team 25 times. Sachin over the last decade has been a part of 29 wins and 26 losses so yes IND are light years ahead of where they were in the 80s and early 90s but they are still not ahead of PAK.

[cosine]

Originally Posted by Monsee WRONG...because in that era, they had a better/strong team which included both Muslim and Hindu/Sikh players... That team also included M. Nisar the only ever real fast bowler to date!

I guess you were there to witness it
Sorry Monsee bhaji, YOU ARE WRONG

Undivided India did not win a single game from 1932- 1946

W/L ratio from 1932-1946: zero

[wins-draws-losses]
0-4-6

Test # 219 (219/1)
England v India, 1932, Only Test
Lord's, London
25,27,28 June 1932 (3-day match)

Result: England won by 158 runs
England wins the one-off Test

-------------------------------
Test # 230 (230/2)
India v England, 1933/34, 1st Test
Gymkhana Ground, Bombay
15,16,17,18 December 1933 (4-day match)

Result: England won by 9 wickets
England leads the 3-Test series 1-0

----------------------------------

Test # 231 (231/3)
India v England, 1933/34, 2nd Test
Eden Gardens, Calcutta
5,6,7,8 January 1934 (4-day match)

Result: Match drawn
England leads the 3-Test series 1-0
-----------------------------------

Test # 232 (232/4)
India v England, 1933/34, 3rd Test
Chepauk, Madras
10,11,12,13 February 1934 (4-day match)

Result: England won by 202 runs
England wins the 3-Test series 2-0
-----------------------------------

Test # 252
England v India, 1936, 1st Test
Lord's, London
27,29,30 June 1936 (3-day match)

Result: England won by 9 wickets
England leads the 3-Test series 1-0
------------------------------------

Test # 253
England v India, 1936, 2nd Test
Old Trafford, Manchester
25,27,28 July 1936 (3-day match)

Result: Match drawn
England leads the 3-Test series 1-0
------------------------------------

Test # 254
England v India, 1936, 3rd Test
Kennington Oval, London
15,17,18 August 1936 (3-day match)

Result: England won by 9 wickets
England wins the 3-Test series 2-0
-----------------------------------

Test # 276 (276/8)
England v India, 1946, 1st Test
Lord's, London
22,24,25 June 1946 (3-day match)

Result: England won by 10 wickets
England leads the 3-Test series 1-0
------------------------------------

Test # 277 (277/9)
England v India, 1946, 2nd Test
Old Trafford, Manchester
20,22,23 July 1946 (3-day match)

Result: Match drawn
England leads the 3-Test series 1-0

-------------------------------------

Test # 278 (278/10)
England v India, 1946, 3rd Test
Kennington Oval, London
17,19,20 August 1946 (3-day match)

Result: Match drawn
England wins the 3-Test series 1-0

[cosine]

Originally Posted by PlanetPakistan Cosine i am not quite sure about your stats because M Yousuf(a player who has consistently played for PAK in the last 10 years) has been a part of the winning team of 32 times and part of the losing team 25 times. Sachin over the last decade has been a part of 29 wins and 26 losses so yes IND are light years ahead of where they were in the 80s and early 90s but they are still not ahead of PAK.

I didnt make these up. On Cricinfo, go to statsguru, then type in Pakistan, and chose most recent matches,and select last 10-100 matches, (unless I made a mistake, which is unlikely )
See for yourself

[kablooee87]

India's record since 1932 :

Won 90
Lost 131
Tied 1
Drew 183
W/L Ratio 0.687


India's record since 1947:

Won 90
Lost 125
Tied 1
Drew 183
W/L ratio 0.72

Hardly a difference in the overall scheme of things. They only played 10 tests before 1947.

[Sheikh]

Just shows what a strong team we've historically been. If we have a couple of good series versus S.A and India, and England falter Vs India, and more likely against Sri Lanka in S.L, we could see our team rise to number 2 overall. Its a close thing and theres only two teams fighting for the number 2 spot overall.

[cosine]

hey kablooee87, I was just arguing that it shouldnt be included and rightly so.

Yeah, as I stated earlier they didnt play many matches but the criteria should be correct. Although it improved their record from C+ to B-

[delete]-nm got it

[kablooee87]

Also, your analysis of the last 100 matches, then last 90 matches, then last 80 matches and so on is redundant because the the last 10 matches were included in all of those.

So I broke it down by decade:

(Wins - Losses - Draws)

1950 - 1959:

6 - 17 - 21

1960-1969:

9 - 21 - 22

1970 - 1979:

17 - 19 - 28

1980 - 1989:

11 - 21 - 48

1990 - 1999:

18 - 20 - 31

2000 - 2007:

29 - 22 - 24

Indian cricket has never experienced a complete decade with a winning record. This is the first decade where they have more wins than losses and it isn't even over yet.

Give me a bit of time, I'll do Pakistan next.

[kablooee87]

Originally Posted by cosine hey kablooee87, I was just arguing that it shouldnt be included and rightly so. Yeah, as I stated earlier they didnt play many matches but the criteria should be correct. Although it improved their record from C+ to B- [delete]-nm got it

lol C+ to B- ???? Are you joking? You do realize that a I don't mean 72 out of 100 right? 1.0 doesn't mean you won all your matches, it means you have just as many wins and losses. On that W/L ratio scale, India is well, well below 50. So you've gone from a D......to a D.

[PlanetPakistan]

Originally Posted by cosine I didnt make these up. On Cricinfo, go to statsguru, then type in Pakistan, and chose most recent matches,and select last 10-100 matches, (unless I made a mistake, which is unlikely ) See for yourself

You are right...i was slightly confused because IND's win percentage in the last 30 tests seemed very high but it turns that 6 of those games and 5 out of the 13 wins were against ZIM and BAN.

[PlanetPakistan]

Originally Posted by kablooee87 Also, your analysis of the last 100 matches, then last 90 matches, then last 80 matches and so on is redundant because the the last 10 matches were included in all of those. So I broke it down by decade: (Wins - Losses - Draws) 1950 - 1959: 6 - 17 - 21 1960-1969: 9 - 21 - 22 1970 - 1979: 17 - 19 - 28 1980 - 1989: 11 - 21 - 48 1990 - 1999: 18 - 20 - 31 2000 - 2007: 29 - 22 - 24 Indian cricket has never experienced a complete decade with a winning record. This is the first decade where they have more wins than losses and it isn't even over yet. Give me a bit of time, I'll do Pakistan next.

Slightly sad to see a 11-21 record during the Kapil era because he is one of my fav cricketers

[kablooee87]

Pakistan's record by decade:

1950 - 1959:

8 - 9 - 12

1960 - 1969:

2 - 8 - 20

1970 - 1979:

9 - 11 - 26

1980 - 1989:

23 - 13 - 44

1990 - 1999:

32 - 21 - 23

2000 - 2007:

29 - 25 - 15

Now then cosine, what was it you were saying about Pakistan's performance? It has stayed the same? Has it?

[cosine]

Originally Posted by kablooee87 Also, your analysis of the last 100 matches, then last 90 matches, then last 80 matches and so on is redundant because the the last 10 matches were included in all of those. S.

I wouldnt call it redundant because with each step ladder the last 10 were being ignored creating a pattern that India W/L was improving at a steady level

[kablooee87]

Originally Posted by cosine I wouldnt call it redundant because with each step ladder the last 10 were being ignored creating a pattern that India W/L was improving at a steady level

but in every single one of those W/L ratio, the 10 most recent tests have been included.

and in every ratio except the last one, the 20 most recent tests have been included.

See what I'm getting at?

[cosine]

Originally Posted by kablooee87 Pakistan's record by decade: 1950 - 1959: 8 - 9 - 12 1960 - 1969: 2 - 8 - 20 1970 - 1979: 9 - 11 - 26 1980 - 1989: 23 - 13 - 44 1990 - 1999: 32 - 21 - 23 2000 - 2007: 29 - 25 - 15 Now then cosine, what was it you were saying about Pakistan's performance? It has stayed the same? Has it?

It stayed the same during the last 100 matches (which is about the last ten years). Do you see something else whereas India's was rising.

I was alluding to the fact the Indian Test team has improved quite a lot and the stats in the last 10 years speak for themselves

[kablooee87]

Originally Posted by cosine It stayed the same during the last 100 matches (which is about the last ten years). Do you see something else whereas India's was rising.

So "Overall test match record" means "The last 10 years" to you?

[BD-fan]

Cosine brother,
I like to point out a major flaw from the old stats that you have produced.

Most of those were 3/4 day test crickets. How many do you think BD could draw if they were facing 3 day test in the last five years? Those 42 loses BD has must have been cut short by half if not erased don't you think? We are comparing results of 3 day test cricket and 5 day test cricket. To me apples and ora....

Another way of looking at things are if those were 5 day tests how many of the draws that has been counted for India would be losses? I bet none. All would be loses. Now that stat would be something more comparable with current BD stats. ;)

[kablooee87]

Originally Posted by PlanetPakistan Slightly sad to see a 11-21 record during the Kapil era because he is one of my fav cricketers

The relevant word here is "hype."

[cosine]

Originally Posted by BD-fan Cosine brother, I like to point out a major flaw from the old stats that you have produced. Most of those were 3/4 day test crickets. How many do you think BD could draw if they were facing 3 day test in the last five years? Those 42 loses BD has must have been cut short by half if not erased don't you think? We are comparing results of 3 day test cricket and 5 day test cricket. To me apples and ora.... Another way of looking at things are if those were 5 day tests how many of the draws that has been counted for India would be draws. I bet none. All would be loses. Now that stat would be something more comparable with current BD stats. ;)

Actually, I was saying that it shouldnt have the matches from 1932-1946 included in India's record. I was not "showing of those stats" because someone stated that Undivided India (from 1932-1946) was a better team and I showed that they did not win a single game.

[cosine]

Originally Posted by kablooee87 So "Overall test match record" means "The last 10 years" to you?

Stop playing around waterloo boy

I never mentioned overall record. I just presented the stats for the last 100 test matches. Stop making up stuff.

I am not denying that Pak has a better record. That was pretty evident from the first post. I was talking about India's progression recently

I gotta leave now
Peace

[kablooee87]

Originally Posted by cosine Stop playing around waterloo boy I never mentioned overall record. I just presented the stats for the last 100 test matches. Stop making up stuff. I am not denying that Pak has a better record. That was pretty evident from the first post. I was talking about India's progression recently I gotta leave now Peace

You never said "recently" in your first post. You simple said "India has been improving their W/L ratio steadily" and then you posted the stats.

I'm in full agreement that they have made progress recently, both sets of stats make that clear. The thread, however, had "OVERALL" (caps and all) in the title. So I thought I'd make it clear.

[cosine]

Originally Posted by kablooee87 You never said "recently" in your first post. You simple said "India has been improving their W/L ratio steadily" and then you posted the stats. I'm in full agreement that they have made progress recently, both sets of stats make that clear. The thread, however, had "OVERALL" (caps and all) in the title. So I thought I'd make it clear.

You made me come back again
I guess the last 100 matches infer recently.

[PlanetPakistan]

Originally Posted by kablooee87 Pakistan's record by decade: 1950 - 1959: 8 - 9 - 12 1960 - 1969: 2 - 8 - 20 1970 - 1979: 9 - 11 - 26 1980 - 1989: 23 - 13 - 44 1990 - 1999: 32 - 21 - 23 2000 - 2007: 29 - 25 - 15 Now then cosine, what was it you were saying about Pakistan's performance? It has stayed the same? Has it?

60s were horrible..hate to say this but Sarfraz was responsible for the turn around and then Imran and Javed elevated us to the top tier.

[kablooee87]

Originally Posted by PlanetPakistan 60s were horrible..hate to say this but Sarfraz was responsible for the turn around and then Imran and Javed elevated us to the top tier.

Not only was it a bad record in the 60s, we only played 30 tests......IN 10 YEARS!!!!!

Agreed on the second part btw. I think as fans of Pakistani cricket fans we have to learn to look at players ONLY as players and ex-players almost as totally different people. Sarfraz was great as a players, so was Miandad. But after retirement it's been a different story.

[Xoib]

60's was bad because Hanif and Fazal were declining and guys like Zaheer, Asif, Mushtaq and Sarfarazwere just starting out at the end of the decade.

[Xoib]

Originally Posted by kablooee87 Pakistan's record by decade: 1950 - 1959: 8 - 9 - 12 1960 - 1969: 2 - 8 - 20 1970 - 1979: 9 - 11 - 26 1980 - 1989: 23 - 13 - 44 1990 - 1999: 32 - 21 - 23 2000 - 2007: 29 - 25 - 15 Now then cosine, what was it you were saying about Pakistan's performance? It has stayed the same? Has it?

Its similar to a normal person life. Fun childhood followed by a troubled teen then finding a footing in your 20's, once a foothold has been established then a long solid career with a share of domestic and professional troubles on the way. With the retirement age nearing problems are starting to crop up more and more

[hellopak]

Originally Posted by kablooee87 Also, your analysis of the last 100 matches, then last 90 matches, then last 80 matches and so on is redundant because the the last 10 matches were included in all of those. So I broke it down by decade: (Wins - Losses - Draws) 1950 - 1959: 6 - 17 - 21 1960-1969: 9 - 21 - 22 1970 - 1979: 17 - 19 - 28 1980 - 1989: 11 - 21 - 48 1990 - 1999: 18 - 20 - 31 2000 - 2007: 29 - 22 - 24 Indian cricket has never experienced a complete decade with a winning record. This is the first decade where they have more wins than losses and it isn't even over yet. Give me a bit of time, I'll do Pakistan next.

In this only decade they probably played many games against BD and Zimbabwave plus there are still 3 more years to go.