Why those innings didn’t make it

We asked Y Ananth Narayan, who devised the rating system for the Wisden 100, why none of the Sachin Tendulkar innings most of our participants talked about failed to make the Top 100:
What about Tendulkar’s winning innings of 155 not out against Australia in 1997-98?

There is no doubt that this was a very good innings. It probably achieved immortality because of the attack Tendulkar unleashed against Shane Warne. But there are three main reasons why it doesn’t rank very high in the Wisden 100. First, the bowling attack was one of the weakest Australians have executed in recent years – Michael Kasprowicz, Paul Reiffel, Warne (below par, but this factor is ignored), Gavin Robertson (who?), Greg Blewett and the Waugh twins. Secondly, Tendulkar got good support during the innings – two fifties (from Sidhu and Dravid) preceded his hundred and another followed him (Azharuddin). And finally, there was less pressure on Tendulkar than could have been, as this was the third innings of the game, not the fourth.

And what about his 136 fights, with a bad back, in Chennai against Pakistan?

Back spasms are not on scorecards. What is recorded is the score and the result. In the end, Pakistan won that match, despite Sachin’s fine innings. By way of experiment, I pretended that Tendulkar had scored another ten runs and taken India to a two- or three-wicket victory: then his innings would have been close to the overall top ten. Indeed, had the other Indian players taken them to a win, Tendulkar’s innings would have easily made it into the Wisden 100 and the Indian Top Ten. Winning was the difference between, say, Brian Lara’s 153 not out (when the West Indies beat Australia by one wicket) and this innings. Winning is not everything, but it is very important.