Trivia - batting June 11, 2008

'Unfulfilled' team innings in ODI matches

A look at performances in ODIs in which teams didn't make use of all their resources, and ended up losing matches despite having plenty of wickets in hand
34

Continuing the ODI analysis work, here is another aspect. What do I mean by "unfulfilled" innings? An example, from an imaginary match will suffice.

England: 250 for 2 in 50.0 overs lost to Australia: 251 for 7 in 49.3 overs

A single line summary of a match. It conveys a lot. We do not need any further match or player information to sense that there was something wrong as far as the England innings was concerned. What were the England batsmen thinking? Whoever be the Australian bowlers, should they not have gone on to score, say, 270 for 6 or for that matter, 290 for 9. Especially as the Australian bowlers seemed to have taken very few wickets, indicating a batsmen-friendly pitch and/or lack of penetration. Let us ignore the current favourite broadcasters' jargon, "no bounce", "two-paced", "not coming on to bat", "ball stopping" et al. The bottom line, especially in view of the Australian reply, was that English batsmen messed up, and messed up big time.

If England were 150 for 0/1/2 at the end of 40 overs, one cannot blame the batsmen who played the last 10 overs. The initial 40 overs were played too slowly. If England were 180 for 0/1/2 at the end of 40 overs, one cannot blame the early batsmen since there was a good platform. The blame rests squarely on the last 10 overs' strategy. In any case, there was a huge strategy mis-fire.

It is a tricky bit of data mining work to unearth such matches. The criteria, gathered after a lot of hits and misses, are outlined below. We cannot afford to have too many matches to study, nor, for that matter, too few.

1. First batting team to lose the match. I have couple of matches relating to a chasing situation at the end of the article. 2. Losing team to have quite a number of wickets at their disposal at the innings end, say no less than 6. 3. Winning team not to have too much of the team resources (as nicely defined by Duckworth and Lewis) at their disposal. In other words, not too many wickets left nor too many deliveries. If the chasing team won with 7/8 wickets in hand and over 5 overs at their disposal, anything more the first batting team did would probably have been insufficient. 4. No D/L coming into play. D/L throws everything out of gear. In the 2003 WC Final, after Australia scored 359, if the match had been abandoned after 20 overs, India could have won with scores of 90/0, 102/1 or 118/3 or lost with scores of 88/0, 100/1 or 116/3. Most sane analyses go out of the window in these matches.

It does not matter at all in these innings which batsmen were still available to bat at the end. Once it has been concluded that there were no less than 7 batsmen available, it does not matter a wee bit, whether this lot of seven or more contained Shahid Afridi or Chris Martin.

It must be remembered that the chasing team has the major advantage that they know their target and they could afford to lose the wickets, even in a heap, in order to reach the target. The first batting team does not have such luxuries. However there is no getting away from the fact, in such matches, that all the resources at their disposal were not put to 100% use. It is also possible that, especially in matches where teams have scored high and lost, the bowlers could be blamed. However that is outside the scope of this analysis.

The idea is to clearly separate matches in which the first batting team messed up in a big way. The reasons why they did so is not important. It is enough to isolate such matches. I have identified a total of 14 matches. An additional interesting data I have shown is the unbeaten partnership at the end of the innings. This will let us get a slightly better idea of the innings.

Team batting first

Odi# 717. Pakistan vs West Indies Played on 23 February 1992 at Melbourne Cricket Ground. West Indies won by 10 wickets. Pakistan: 220 for 2 wkt(s) in 50.0 overs. Unbeaten 3rd wkt ptshp: 123

  • Rameez Raja 102*(158), Javed Miandad 57*(61)
West Indies: 221 for 0 wkt(s) in 46.5 overs
  • Haynes D.L 93*(144), Lara B.C 88r(101)
This match does not fall into the data mining criteria already given and is provided only to show the type of matches left out. There is no doubt that Pakistan under-achieved to the tune of about 30 runs. Note how self-centred Ramiz Raja's innings was, taking 158 balls to score 102 runs. However West Indies' response indicated that they had the resources, both wickets and balls to score these 30 runs and more.

Only one match in which the losing team lost just 2 wickets.

1. ODI # 2096. South Africa vs West Indies. Played on 4 February 2004 at New Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg. South Africa won by 4 wickets. West Indies: 304 for 2 wkt(s) in 50.0 overs. Unbeaten 3rd wkt ptshp: 92

  • Gayle C.H 152*(153), Chanderpaul S 85 (114), Powell R.L 49*(24)
South Africa: 310 for 6 wkt(s) in 49.4 overs
  • Smith G.C 58 (60), Kallis J.H 139 (142)
The first match selected is painful for me because I watched this match and was furious at the way West Indies messed up their innings. In this case the blame must rest on their early batsman since the last 10 overs added over 100 runs. Look at the South African innings. They had very little to spare, especially balls. They had almost reached their limits. If West Indies had scored 20 more runs, which was there for the taking, they would have won the match. A classic example of a team which shoots itself in the foot.

Now for the teams which lost 3 wickets.

2. ODI # 1391. England vs Sri Lanka. Played on 23 January 1999 at Adelaide Oval. Sri Lanka won by 1 wicket. England: 302 for 3 wkt(s) in 50.0 overs. Unbeaten 4th wkt ptshp: 154

  • Hick G.A 126*(118) Fairbrother N.H 78*(71)
Sri Lanka: 303 for 9 wkt(s) in 49.4 overs
  • Jayasuriya S.T 51 (36), Jayawardene D.P.M.D 120 (111)
This is as perfect as we are likely to get to this particular type of match. England with 7 wickets in hand probably fell 30 runs short. Sri Lanka just about managed it. Only one wicket and two balls at their disposal. 5 runs would have been their limit. It is probably unfair to throw the blame on the English batsmen when they finished with a 300+ score. However there is no denying the fact that they fell a few runs short. Either Hick or Fairbrother should have pressed the pedal.

3. ODI # 538. India vs New Zealand. Played on 17 December 1988 at Moti Bagh Stadium, Baroda. India won by 2 wickets. New Zealand: 278 for 3 wkt(s) in 50.0 overs. Unbeaten 4th wkt ptshp: 67

  • Wright J.G 70 (96), Jones A.H 57 (85), Greatbatch M.J 84*(67)
India: 282 for 8 wkt(s) in 47.1 overs
  • Manjrekar S.V 52 (69), Azharuddin M 108*(65), Sharma A.K 50 (36)
Somewhat similar to the previous match. New Zealand should have come closer to the 300 mark, considering the fact that India were well placed at the end so far as balls were concerned, but not in terms of wickets. Note Azharuddin's innings which has remained the fastest century by an Indian batsman for nearly 20 years.

4. ODI # 1572. India vs South Africa. Played on 9 March 2000 at Nehru Stadium, Kochi. India won by 3 wickets. South Africa: 301 for 3 wkt(s) in 50.0 overs. Unbeaten 4th wkt ptshp: 52

  • Kirsten G 115 (123), Gibbs H.H 111 (127)
India: 302 for 7 wkt(s) in 49.4 overs
  • Jadeja A 92 (109)
A peculiar match. Two good centuries from the losing team. Here the last 10 overs were the problem since South Africa were 238 for 1 in 40 and added only 63 in the last 10 overs. Kallis and Cronje just could not speed up enough. Like Sri Lanka against England, reported earlier, India had very little in the tank at the end.

5. ODI # 1824. South Africa vs Australia. Played on 6 April 2002 at St George's Park, Port Elizabeth. Australia won by 3 wickets. South Africa: 326 for 3 wkt(s) in 50.0 overs. Unbeaten 4th wkt ptshp: 132

  • Smith G.C 84 (103), Kallis J.H 80*( 59), Rhodes J.N 71*( 50)
Australia: 330 for 7 wkt(s) in 49.1 overs
  • Gilchrist A.C 52 (34), Ponting R.T 92 (107), Lehmann D.S 91 (94)
A very high score by South Africa chased with nonchalance by Australia. Difficult to blame a team which scored 326 runs and lost. The finish of the innings by Kallis and Rhodes was spectacular. This also brings us to the interesting point whether nothing more could be done beyond a certain stage. Maybe the accelarator pedal was already at the floor.

6. ODI # 301. Australia vs West Indies. Played on 10 February 1985 at Melbourne Cricket Ground. West Indies won by 4 wickets. Australia: 271 for 3 wkt(s) in 50.0 overs. Unbeaten 4th wkt ptshp: 68

  • Smith S.B 54 (90), Wood G.M 81 (119), Phillips W.B 56*(37)
West Indies: 273 for 6 wkt(s) in 49.2 overs
  • Richardson R.B 50 (90), Logie A.L 60 (56)
Smith and Wood were probably too slow at the beginning; so was Richardson for West Indies. However they were clear about their target and just reached the same.

7. ODI # 794. India vs England. Played on 18 January 1993 at Sawai Mansingh Stadium, Jaipur. England won by 4 wickets. India: 223 for 3 wkt(s) in 48.0 overs. Unbeaten 4th wkt ptshp: 164

  • Kambli V.G 100*(149), Tendulkar S.R 82*( 81)
England: 224 for 6 wkt(s) in 48.0 overs
  • Stewart A.J 91 (126)
A low scoring match lost by India. Somewhat similar to Ramiz Raja's century mentioned earlier, Kambli's was probably quite slow. That India had slipped to 59 for 3 does not absolve the Mumbai pair of the tardiness of the partnership. It must be mentioned that Azharuddin, who essayed a 65-ball 108 in 1988, played a match-losing 6 in 28 balls here.

8. ODI # 615. West Indies vs England. Played on 3 April 1990 at Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, Barbados. West Indies won by 4 wickets. England: 214 for 3 wkt(s) in 38.0 overs. Unbeaten 4th wkt ptshp: 53

  • Smith R.A 69 (84) Lamb A.J 55*(39)
West Indies: 217 for 6 wkt(s) in 37.3 overs
  • Richardson R.B 80 (84), Best C.A 51 (43)
Somewhat similar to the previous match. David Smith of England took 31 balls for his score of 5 and Wayne Larkins, 73 balls for his 34. Together they had a strike rate of 2.4 runs per over.

The matches in which the first batting team lost 4 wickets and the second batting team lost 7 wickets or more are shown in a summary form.

9.2349 2006 Aus 434/4 in 50.0 Saf 438/9 in 49.5 won by 1 wicket
10.2499 2007 Ire 284/4 in 50.0 Ken 286/9 in 49.0 won by 1 wicket
11.1035 1996 Aus 242/4 in 50.0 Slk 246/7 in 49.4 won by 3 wickets
12.0716 1992 Zim 312/4 in 50.0 Slk 313/7 in 49.2 won by 3 wickets
13.2439 2006 Win 272/4 in 50.0 Eng 276/7 in 48.3 won by 3 wickets
14.2184 2004 Zim 252/4 in 50.0 Pak 258/7 in 48.1 won by 3 wickets

The first match needs a mention. I hope a reader does not come back and blast me for implying that Australia should have scored a few more runs. It was South Africa's relentless aggression and continuous attacking play that finally won them the match. Having said this I must mention that Lee could score only a single off the last two balls bowled by Telemachus. A four or two would have helped.

In the second match, K.J.O'Brien scored 142 in 123 for Ireland. Kenya were 231 for 9 and a great Irish victory seemed certaiin. Then Odoyo, with a blistering 61 in 36 added 55 for the tenth wicket in 5 overs and won. A few more runsfor Ireland and who knows what might have happened.

No particlular team has messed up their first innings, in this regard, more often than the others, although, for the record, Australia have been the culprit three times. Sri Lanka does not appear in this list even once.

Team batting second

Now for the team batting second. Here I have ignored all matches decided through D/L or equivalent methods. The reason has already been explained. In other matches, only reasonably close matches, where the margin of loss was less than 30 runs, are considered. That leaves us with only 3 competitive matches.

1. ODI # 56. Pakistan vs India. Played on 3 November 1978 at Zafar Ali Stadium, Sahiwal. Pakistan won (conceded by India). Pakistan: 205 for 7 wkt(s) in 40.0 overs

  • Asif Iqbal 62 (76)
India: 183 for 2 wkt(s) in 37.4 overs
  • Gaekwad A.D 78*(103), Amarnath S 62 (86)
This was the match conceded by India after Sarfraz bowled a series of bouncers in the 38th over. I do not want to get into an argument with anyone. It is clear that the short pitched balls were over-used. It is also clear that the rules were very vague and Pakistan were justified in using the rules to their advantage. Mushtaq Mohammad cannot be blamed for that. If Bedi was the fielding captain, surely he would also have done the same thing, although he could not very well have asked Ghavri and Mohinder Amarnath to bowl bouncers at 120 kmph. Anyhow why should a captain concede a match when so close to the target. Bedi should take responsibility for that.

2. ODI # 160. Pakistan vs Australia. Played on 8 October 1982 at Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore. Pakistan won by 28 runs. Pakistan: 234 for 3 wkt(s) in 40.0 overs

  • Zaheer Abbas 109 (117), Javed Miandad 61*(65)
Australia: 206 for 4 wkt(s) in 40.0 overs
  • Laird B.M 91*(114), Hughes K.J 64 (80)
Possibly defensive fields and defensive bowling prevented Australia from speeding towards the end. Alternately the lack of experience in handling chases could have been the reason. It must be conceded that a scoring rate of nearly 6 was quite difficult to achieve those days.

3. ODI # 333. Sri Lanka vs India. Played on 21 September 1985 at P.Saravanamuttu Stadium, Colombo. Sri Lanka won by 14 runs. Sri Lanka: 171 for 5 wkt(s) in 28.0 overs

  • Madugalle R.S 50*(39)
India: 157 for 4 wkt(s) in 28.0 overs
  • Vengsarkar D.B 50 (46)
The asking rate was quite high (6.10) and India, despite having Srikkanth and Kapil could not do much against the accurate Sri Lankan bowling, led by John.

Finally I cannot close this without referring to this particular classic (mis)match.

ODI # 19. England vs India. Played on 7 June 1975 at Lord's, London. England won by 202 runs. England: 334 for 4 wkt(s) in 60.0 overs

  • Amiss D.L 137 (147), Fletcher K.W.R 68 (107), Old C.M 51*(30)
India: 132 for 3 wkt(s) in 60.0 overs
  • Gavaskar S.M 36 (174), Viswanath G.R 37 (59)
This was the infamous Gavaskar crawl. Even though this was India's third ever ODI match, it is beyond anyone's, including his own, comprehension what Gavaskar was thinking. However, enough has been written on the subject.

At least for this post let me hope that readers do not respond with messages such as "why was abc not considered", "xyz is superior to pqr", "efg was the best" et al. Consider these as the only matches to be looked into.

Comments such as "This is a useless analysis" will not be published since there is no insight provided. On the other hand, a comment such as "The analysis is flawed since only the wickets lost are taken into account. The balls remaining should also be taken into consideration" will be published since that is a genuine comment on the article and adds value.

Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Raj on July 14, 2008, 11:53 GMT

    Coming from such a good writer & cricket brain I am really amazed that you are trying to show the readers only one side of the coin. Ref ODI # 2096.With WI top-order clearly aware that the middle order has been failing of late consistently , they clearly showed cricket intelligence to not loose any wickets till late so that the guys down the order can come & play freely(as powell did). as its difficult for a new batsman to come & hit the groove staright away they did absolutely the right thing by not loosing their wicket.

    I cant believe that instead of looking major factors such as WI having a poor bowling attack,fielding unit & flat tracks we are blaming the poor batsmen for scoring a 150!! Please try to show the comlete picture in an analysis.

    Hope it helps you to devote your time to valuable analysis in the future.

    Raj Melbourne

  • Udit on July 9, 2008, 13:34 GMT

    A great and expansive article. However it could have been better if some examples were provided with a lot of detail, maybe even at the cost of some other examples. But honestly...sometimes in 300+ innings, it is extremely difficult to blame someone, because for a poor run rate in one section, there must have been an excellent run-rate in many others, and this does not happen in every game. But I agree with the points, there is nothing more irritating the watching your team bat first, and you are left to wonder what could have been at the end.

  • Domnic on July 8, 2008, 16:14 GMT

    Most of the matches those are taken into consideration are based on matches from 80's and 90's and in the present decade the game has been totally changed and approach is quite different and the best example is the latest match in the Asia cup 2008 with Pakistan and India, where Pak scored 308 runs sparring just 6 wickets and inturn india finshed the proceedings by just loosing 4 wickets. If we say pakistan is short of 20 or thirty then in the process of accomplishing they would have lost few wickets early and would have fallen short of what they have achieved. It is like change in climate due to Global warming there is an change in cricket too .. Cricket Warming.

  • Vikram Maingi on July 8, 2008, 11:49 GMT

    2002 Natwest Trophy Final between England and India, when India had beaten England by 2 wickets, should be included in the list. The England did not press the paddle on the accelerator during their slog overs. England managed only 81 runs in their last 10 overs

  • Jeff on June 25, 2008, 16:26 GMT

    In answer to Raghvendra's comment and query - I once read a very good book by Rob Eastaway called "Beating The Odds - The Hidden Mathematics of Sport". This contained a chapter on Tennis serves. I can't remember exactly the analysis but I think it may be of relevence to you. It also contains lots of other analysis including something on the coin toss in cricket...

  • Abdul Baseer on June 24, 2008, 6:38 GMT

    Great analysis, but probably the match selection criterion is difficult to set. Saying that Australia should have scored even more than 434 to beat South Africa is perhaps not justified. The argument like Lee scoring only 1 run of last 2 balls is also not justified since South Africa scored 4 more runs with 1 ball still to go. Here, the match selection criterion for this type of analysis is just impossible to set...Similarly Pakistan scoring only 220/2, why not 280/5? Why do you assume that only 30 more runs could have been scored? And then every few runs add to pressure while chasing....SO, it's not easy to say that WI would have still chased it down successfully. [[The point made is that there were still unutilized resources. That is all. Whether 30 more runs could have been scored or 50 more runs is all conjecture. Also would not Lee likely to have scored 8 runs in 2 balls than 1.]]

  • Raghvendra on June 22, 2008, 13:32 GMT

    Excellent analysis! These kind of scenarios happen 'coz teams are not sure when to press the accelerator and eventually end up not utilizing their resources to optimum. Too much acceleration on the other side may cause wastage of resources. On optimization of resources I would like to draw analogy from one other sport,Tennis. (Though this not exactly right place, but few ppl may find it interesting) What should be the optimum percentage of first serve? If your first serve is 100%, then probably you could have afforded some more zip, pace, experiments in your serve, which you did not try (underutilization of resources). On the other hand if first serve % is too poor (less than 40% or so), then you are doing too many second serves. Given the fact that opponents find it far more easy to win points on the second serves, you are giving too many opportunities to opponents. In either case, resources are not being put to optimum use. Please lemme know if anybody is aware of any such study. [[One more classic analogy. S.J.Simon, a great Bridge writer wrote "If you make all the contracts you bid, you are certainly underbidding". Very true. It is only when you take risks, bid and go down can you be certain that you bid at the correct levels.]]

  • ganga on June 21, 2008, 14:13 GMT

    Good Analysis. I think SA vs India match in srilanka (ICC Champions trophy) should also figure. In that match i remember SA need to score some thing like 40 runs of 60 balls with 8 wkts in hands.

    Kallis messes there, india wins.

  • Observer on June 21, 2008, 8:48 GMT

    I guess, your wanted to consider only the matches where team batting first lost just 4 or less wickets.

    Another way would be to have a look at cases where the team batting first had lost very few wickets for the majority of their innings. E.g. third wicket after the 45th or 40th over.

    In my view this would bring up more interesting cases, as currently you are missing out on ones where the first team tried to put its foot on accelerator only in last couple of overs while with their initial strong position they should have attempted to stretch themselves much earlier.

    Interestingly, this would immediately throw up the Natwest Trophy Final of 2002. Trescothick (109 in 100) and Hussain (115 in 128) hit 100s and England lost their third wicket in the 47th over. There is a case that both of them could have pushed the scoring more even as they were approaching their centuries. India in reply won dramatically, losing eight wickets and with just three balls to spare. Clearing stretched to the limits.

  • The Wog on June 21, 2008, 6:29 GMT

    While the notorious match #2349 is an argument to the contrary, I agree with Jeff Few that it's not normally optimum to go flat out and lose more wickets. (e.g. AUS in 2003 CWC final scored so many BECAUSE they lost so few wickets). Duckworth Lewis tends to make it worse still to lose wickets in the modern game.

    (Incidentally I've always felt that while Ponting didn't throw #2349, he didn't try to win it either. Lewis was getting hammered and he felt bowling him through his 10 and losing the match would play him out of the side before the CWC.) [[I have always felt very odd that Lewis bowled 10 overs while Lee bowled 8 overs and Clark 6. To boot, Symonds 9 and Clarke 7. All these bowlers had an RPO much below Lewis. I am not the type to throw an accusation lightly. However it was bewildering, to say the least.]]

  • Raj on July 14, 2008, 11:53 GMT

    Coming from such a good writer & cricket brain I am really amazed that you are trying to show the readers only one side of the coin. Ref ODI # 2096.With WI top-order clearly aware that the middle order has been failing of late consistently , they clearly showed cricket intelligence to not loose any wickets till late so that the guys down the order can come & play freely(as powell did). as its difficult for a new batsman to come & hit the groove staright away they did absolutely the right thing by not loosing their wicket.

    I cant believe that instead of looking major factors such as WI having a poor bowling attack,fielding unit & flat tracks we are blaming the poor batsmen for scoring a 150!! Please try to show the comlete picture in an analysis.

    Hope it helps you to devote your time to valuable analysis in the future.

    Raj Melbourne

  • Udit on July 9, 2008, 13:34 GMT

    A great and expansive article. However it could have been better if some examples were provided with a lot of detail, maybe even at the cost of some other examples. But honestly...sometimes in 300+ innings, it is extremely difficult to blame someone, because for a poor run rate in one section, there must have been an excellent run-rate in many others, and this does not happen in every game. But I agree with the points, there is nothing more irritating the watching your team bat first, and you are left to wonder what could have been at the end.

  • Domnic on July 8, 2008, 16:14 GMT

    Most of the matches those are taken into consideration are based on matches from 80's and 90's and in the present decade the game has been totally changed and approach is quite different and the best example is the latest match in the Asia cup 2008 with Pakistan and India, where Pak scored 308 runs sparring just 6 wickets and inturn india finshed the proceedings by just loosing 4 wickets. If we say pakistan is short of 20 or thirty then in the process of accomplishing they would have lost few wickets early and would have fallen short of what they have achieved. It is like change in climate due to Global warming there is an change in cricket too .. Cricket Warming.

  • Vikram Maingi on July 8, 2008, 11:49 GMT

    2002 Natwest Trophy Final between England and India, when India had beaten England by 2 wickets, should be included in the list. The England did not press the paddle on the accelerator during their slog overs. England managed only 81 runs in their last 10 overs

  • Jeff on June 25, 2008, 16:26 GMT

    In answer to Raghvendra's comment and query - I once read a very good book by Rob Eastaway called "Beating The Odds - The Hidden Mathematics of Sport". This contained a chapter on Tennis serves. I can't remember exactly the analysis but I think it may be of relevence to you. It also contains lots of other analysis including something on the coin toss in cricket...

  • Abdul Baseer on June 24, 2008, 6:38 GMT

    Great analysis, but probably the match selection criterion is difficult to set. Saying that Australia should have scored even more than 434 to beat South Africa is perhaps not justified. The argument like Lee scoring only 1 run of last 2 balls is also not justified since South Africa scored 4 more runs with 1 ball still to go. Here, the match selection criterion for this type of analysis is just impossible to set...Similarly Pakistan scoring only 220/2, why not 280/5? Why do you assume that only 30 more runs could have been scored? And then every few runs add to pressure while chasing....SO, it's not easy to say that WI would have still chased it down successfully. [[The point made is that there were still unutilized resources. That is all. Whether 30 more runs could have been scored or 50 more runs is all conjecture. Also would not Lee likely to have scored 8 runs in 2 balls than 1.]]

  • Raghvendra on June 22, 2008, 13:32 GMT

    Excellent analysis! These kind of scenarios happen 'coz teams are not sure when to press the accelerator and eventually end up not utilizing their resources to optimum. Too much acceleration on the other side may cause wastage of resources. On optimization of resources I would like to draw analogy from one other sport,Tennis. (Though this not exactly right place, but few ppl may find it interesting) What should be the optimum percentage of first serve? If your first serve is 100%, then probably you could have afforded some more zip, pace, experiments in your serve, which you did not try (underutilization of resources). On the other hand if first serve % is too poor (less than 40% or so), then you are doing too many second serves. Given the fact that opponents find it far more easy to win points on the second serves, you are giving too many opportunities to opponents. In either case, resources are not being put to optimum use. Please lemme know if anybody is aware of any such study. [[One more classic analogy. S.J.Simon, a great Bridge writer wrote "If you make all the contracts you bid, you are certainly underbidding". Very true. It is only when you take risks, bid and go down can you be certain that you bid at the correct levels.]]

  • ganga on June 21, 2008, 14:13 GMT

    Good Analysis. I think SA vs India match in srilanka (ICC Champions trophy) should also figure. In that match i remember SA need to score some thing like 40 runs of 60 balls with 8 wkts in hands.

    Kallis messes there, india wins.

  • Observer on June 21, 2008, 8:48 GMT

    I guess, your wanted to consider only the matches where team batting first lost just 4 or less wickets.

    Another way would be to have a look at cases where the team batting first had lost very few wickets for the majority of their innings. E.g. third wicket after the 45th or 40th over.

    In my view this would bring up more interesting cases, as currently you are missing out on ones where the first team tried to put its foot on accelerator only in last couple of overs while with their initial strong position they should have attempted to stretch themselves much earlier.

    Interestingly, this would immediately throw up the Natwest Trophy Final of 2002. Trescothick (109 in 100) and Hussain (115 in 128) hit 100s and England lost their third wicket in the 47th over. There is a case that both of them could have pushed the scoring more even as they were approaching their centuries. India in reply won dramatically, losing eight wickets and with just three balls to spare. Clearing stretched to the limits.

  • The Wog on June 21, 2008, 6:29 GMT

    While the notorious match #2349 is an argument to the contrary, I agree with Jeff Few that it's not normally optimum to go flat out and lose more wickets. (e.g. AUS in 2003 CWC final scored so many BECAUSE they lost so few wickets). Duckworth Lewis tends to make it worse still to lose wickets in the modern game.

    (Incidentally I've always felt that while Ponting didn't throw #2349, he didn't try to win it either. Lewis was getting hammered and he felt bowling him through his 10 and losing the match would play him out of the side before the CWC.) [[I have always felt very odd that Lewis bowled 10 overs while Lee bowled 8 overs and Clark 6. To boot, Symonds 9 and Clarke 7. All these bowlers had an RPO much below Lewis. I am not the type to throw an accusation lightly. However it was bewildering, to say the least.]]

  • Jayesh on June 20, 2008, 16:04 GMT

    I think d review upon d England v/s SriLanka match was wrong(Refer ODI # 1391. England vs Sri Lanka.).They had pressed the pedal at the right time because the last three overs had yielded 53 runs to take them beyond the 300 runs mark which was a very good total at that time.It was only due to the brilliance of Jayasurya and Jayawardene that SriLanka won. [[In that case some of the earlier overs were found wanting.]]

  • PD Long on June 20, 2008, 15:50 GMT

    2 points to make about the England v SL game from 1999: 1. The Eng inns was interupted by the infamous 'chucking' call against Murali 2. Eng scored over 50 in the last 3 overs so that would be some accelerator that needed pressing! [[In that case some of the earlier overs were found wanting.]]

  • Dixit chawla on June 20, 2008, 8:10 GMT

    Very intersting analaysis. But i want to just add a point or two.It is all about which type of batsman were left in ur line when when you have used full quota of bating overs.For example in firs case in pak's slow inning of 220/2 slower ramiz used 158 balls many of which were in slog overs.Similarlaly miandad used slog over withot sloging. Now see batsmen with much higher strike rate salim malik,akram,moin khan, ijaj left without facing. If above batsmans had faced 100 balls in last 20 over they would easly reach 265/5 in stead of 220/2.So inning is unfulfilled if team used full quota of over and scores much less than expacted without using batsman with higher strike rate.

  • Swami on June 19, 2008, 3:44 GMT

    One match comes to mind. Pak vs WI at Sharjah, Oct 1988. It was the champions tropy league match where Pak scored 294 off 50 overs. WI crawled to 210/5 in their 50 overs. This I felt was worth mentioning since it was in a period where WI were still the kings of ODI as well as test cricket.

    Greenidge got a painstaking unbeaten 100.

    Last wicket partnership : 64 runs

  • Bob on June 16, 2008, 17:50 GMT

    Hi sorry - no idea where else to put a request.

    Love these number crunches... Though I remain skeptical as to their use as a tactical tool since cricket matches are idiosyncratic and the game constantly evolving (numbers will always reveal trends despite this).

    However... would somebody consider doing an analysis of the performance of Australia's star batsmen after the departure of McGrath and Warne. E.g. Ponting's test average during and after Warne and McGrath... It seems to me Hayden has maintained his form - but Ponting has dropped off - how has it been for Michael Clarke, Mike Hussey etc...?

    I would be very interested to know in other words...

    The advantage that good bowlers give to batsmen... If you could show it to be significant then surely Brian Lara IS the greatest batsman of the modern era without doubt - because he never had the help of any good bowlers.

  • Jeff on June 13, 2008, 8:34 GMT

    Excellent article and a really great last comment by Jeff Few. It really does depend on your batting lineup as to how you decide to best use your resources.

    Eg, say you are 200-5 after 40 overs. It's no good trying to slog the last 10 overs if your numbers 8-11 are rabbits (think of an England tail of Mahmood, Harmison, Anderson, Panesar - i've no idea if these 4 ever played an ODI together, but knowing England, it wouldn't surprise me if they had)

    In this case, you could go from 200-5 to 230 all out very quickly - the better percentage option would be for the last 2 batsmen to play sensibly and end up at 250-5.

    Incidently (and linking this article back to Ananth's previous ones), the Eng team that Jeff Few listed would (based on average & SR) be predicted to score 259-7 (with the 7th wkt falling sometime in the last 3 overs) - suggesting that this team would use it's resources almost perfectly (i've subbed Prior for Ambrose as he hasn't played an ODI yet and has no stats)

  • Jeff Few on June 12, 2008, 22:58 GMT

    How about looking at the *ideal* number of wickets lost? At the extremes (assuming a team bat first and use all 50 overs) you have a team that loses 0 wickets, that fails to utilise its resourses (IE wickets in hand) OTOH being x for 9 isnt a good idea either, you dont want to be wasting balls on your number 11 batsmen coz he probably wont score much! So if you take this England team: Cook, Wright, KP, Colly, Bell, Flintoff, Mascheranas, Ambrose, Broad, Sidebottom, Anderson

    the ideal wickets lost after 50 overs would be 7 to make full use of your resources, since you want all your decent batsmen (inc Broad coz he can slog) to bat, but not really Sidey and Anderson.

    The Indian team mentioned above, with '5 specialist out and out bowlers',however would have an 'ideal wickets' of 4

    An imaginary team of Ponting, Dhoni and 9 Panesars would ideally lose no wickets!

    Lets not mention T20 where the dot ball conceded is more of a loss to the batting team than the wicket itself!

  • Samir Chopra on June 12, 2008, 19:56 GMT

    Hi Ananth, thanks for this post. I blogged on an another match you might want to consider adding to this list. http://eye-on-cricket.blogspot.com/2008/06/its-just-around-corner.html

  • Anonymous on June 12, 2008, 19:55 GMT

    wow. nice facts. how long did it take u to rite this?

  • Ram on June 12, 2008, 15:07 GMT

    Shows a new perspective and an angle so far not discussed.

  • sachit on June 12, 2008, 3:35 GMT

    wow. can't imagine how you went through all these matches. Excellent analysis, although slightly unfair on the Aus-Rsa game.Until most recently, many teams shared the view that once you score 300+ the game was almost won. This theory went out after SA chased down 400+. I suggest readers to check out ODI # 2023 SriLanka vs WestIndies also WI -312/4[50 overs] Gayle 94(125) Lara 116(106) SL -313/6[49.3 overs] Chandana 89(71) SriLanka may not have lost 7+ wickets, but they do not usually bat deep. Apparently Sri Lanka seem to feature a lot in these matches chasing big totals where the opponent should have made more runs.However they have no "unfulfilled" innings. Is it attitude? Interesting....

  • Anand on June 12, 2008, 3:31 GMT

    Continuting... just to give u another example.6 years after Azhar played that magical innings, India played NZ in Delhi and scoed 289-3 in 50 overs. It was still enough to win by 107 runs. Had India lost, then surely one would think why did they not get past 300 after losing only 3 wickets. Jadeja's slowish 90 would come under scrutiny. But that was time when Jayasurya and Kalu hadnt opened together and one opener was always expected to go slow. I would say the same about the analysis on the match in which Aus scored 330-7 to beat SA. Although teams had learnt to chase better by 2002, 326 was still such a high target that not many expected Aus to win. It was a masterclass from Gilchrist, Ponting which made it possible. Again in hindsight, one can pick a slow innings by an SA batsman, but in both the matches I spoke about, it is pobably that slow innings which laid the platform for a huge score and only a blinder by someone could win it for the opposition just like the one in Jo'burg.

  • Anand on June 12, 2008, 3:00 GMT

    Continuting... just to give u another example.6 years after Azhar played that magical innings, India played NZ in Delhi and scoed 289-3 in 50 overs. It was still enough to win by 107 runs. Had India lost, then surely one would think why did they not get past 300 after losing only 3 wickets. Jadeja's slowish 90 would come under scrutiny. But that was time when Jayasurya and Kalu hadnt opened together and one opener was always expected to go slow. I would say the same about the analysis on the match in which Aus scored 330-7 to beat SA. Although teams had learnt to chase better by 2002, 326 was still such a high target that not many expected Aus to win. It was a masterclass from Gilchrist, Ponting which made it possible. Again in hindsight, one can pick a slow innings by an SA batsman, but in both the matches I spoke about, it is pobably that slow innings which laid the platform for a huge score and only a blinder by someone could win it for the opposition just like the one in Jo'burg.

  • Anand on June 12, 2008, 2:50 GMT

    Hi Ananth: A good topic to analyze. I share your thoughts about Bedi's conceding the match as a foolish decision. I dont want to sound abusive but time and again Bedi has shown that he lets enotions take over and acts irrationally. Coming back to your analysis, I have some thoughts to share. While your analysis on Gavaskar's 36* in 50 overs is spot on, I would like to differ on the thoughts in the match in which Azhar scored a 62 ball 100. In the 80's any team scoring more than 5 runs an over was expected to win 9 out of 10 times. NZ scored at almost 6 runs an over. Infact, they could do so because they lost fewer wickets. You would never expect guys like Wright and Andrew Jones to explode at the top. Infact the number of wickets left enabled Greatbatch to accelerate towards the end. It was just that Azhar played a blinder. Chasing 278 in the 80s was as rare as chasing 330+ in today's cricket. Really Cant blame NZ here although based on hind sight many things can be concluded. To cont.

  • jigar on June 12, 2008, 1:43 GMT

    truely a wonderful analysis. sometimes between the 15th till 40th over teams take a nap. if you can concetrate on this aspect of one day games (15th till 40th over), it might help everyone better understand the 20-20 phenomenon.

  • Vekram on June 11, 2008, 23:25 GMT

    This was the match conceded by India after Sarfraz bowled a series of bouncers in the 38th over. I do not want to get into an argument with anyone. It is clear that the short pitched balls were over-used.....................Anyhow why should a captain concede a match when so close to the target. Bedi should take responsibility for that.

    Because Sarfraz could've broken someone's nose? Taken out a couple of teeth maybe? Ask Nari Contractor.

  • Jeff Few on June 11, 2008, 23:21 GMT

    If you think international cricket is bad, you wanna look at village cricket. In our league the amount of times you see a pair of 50+ year old opening batsmen stonewall all 45 overs for a final score of 80ish for 0, with the teams big hitting all-rounders sat in the pavillion marking dot after dot in the scorebook, then they (the all rounders/bowlers) getting the blame for the defeat when the other team knock the eighty runs off in twenty overs is incredible!

  • Dimuthu Ratnayake on June 11, 2008, 20:22 GMT

    never analysed these scenarios myself. bravo and thanks for the effort! do you plan on doing a same analysis on how "bowler gave a match away" after being in a comfortable position either defending or in the first innings? cheers

  • Zakria Zubair on June 11, 2008, 19:16 GMT

    you should write a thesis on cricket my friend..u have an amazing talent for research and analysis

  • farhan khan on June 11, 2008, 19:12 GMT

    This analysis is only true for extreme situations. For e.g. West Indies won by 10 wickets. Pakistan: 220 for 2 wkt(s) in 50.0 overs. England won by 202 runs. England: 334 for 4 wkt(s) in 60.0 overs. India: 132 for 3 wkt(s) in 60.0 overs. I don't see any point in applying the same logic for other matches.

  • srinath narayanan on June 11, 2008, 18:54 GMT

    your study is very interesting....will the natwest final whr india chased 320+runs come under any 1 list??

  • Sportsfan on June 11, 2008, 18:19 GMT

    Excellent analysis. I hope the attitudes of the teams batting first in ODI's change from now on. I see many teams go in to bat having a 'target' in mind. I watch on TV, 'the experts' talk about 'par score' for the track. But I believe the team going in to bat first should aim to score as many runs as they possibly can using all their (or most of their) 'resources'. I have seen the Indian team dropping a specialist batsman and taking 5 specialist bowlers as the selectors felt that they did not need the 6th specialist batsman because he was not used in the previous match! Now they would, hopefully, realize that the team played so bad in the first game that they didn't utilize the resources properly. I would appreciate if you could give us more this kind of sensible analysis.

  • Anonymous on June 11, 2008, 18:05 GMT

    its a pity that the benchmark is 5 wickets or the 2003 canada south africa match would have been quite high on the list

  • kin won chau on June 11, 2008, 18:01 GMT

    What about the famous 400+ run chase by RSA against Aus. why is it not included in this list? << Match no 9 in the list. Pl re-read the analysis. >>

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • kin won chau on June 11, 2008, 18:01 GMT

    What about the famous 400+ run chase by RSA against Aus. why is it not included in this list? << Match no 9 in the list. Pl re-read the analysis. >>

  • Anonymous on June 11, 2008, 18:05 GMT

    its a pity that the benchmark is 5 wickets or the 2003 canada south africa match would have been quite high on the list

  • Sportsfan on June 11, 2008, 18:19 GMT

    Excellent analysis. I hope the attitudes of the teams batting first in ODI's change from now on. I see many teams go in to bat having a 'target' in mind. I watch on TV, 'the experts' talk about 'par score' for the track. But I believe the team going in to bat first should aim to score as many runs as they possibly can using all their (or most of their) 'resources'. I have seen the Indian team dropping a specialist batsman and taking 5 specialist bowlers as the selectors felt that they did not need the 6th specialist batsman because he was not used in the previous match! Now they would, hopefully, realize that the team played so bad in the first game that they didn't utilize the resources properly. I would appreciate if you could give us more this kind of sensible analysis.

  • srinath narayanan on June 11, 2008, 18:54 GMT

    your study is very interesting....will the natwest final whr india chased 320+runs come under any 1 list??

  • farhan khan on June 11, 2008, 19:12 GMT

    This analysis is only true for extreme situations. For e.g. West Indies won by 10 wickets. Pakistan: 220 for 2 wkt(s) in 50.0 overs. England won by 202 runs. England: 334 for 4 wkt(s) in 60.0 overs. India: 132 for 3 wkt(s) in 60.0 overs. I don't see any point in applying the same logic for other matches.

  • Zakria Zubair on June 11, 2008, 19:16 GMT

    you should write a thesis on cricket my friend..u have an amazing talent for research and analysis

  • Dimuthu Ratnayake on June 11, 2008, 20:22 GMT

    never analysed these scenarios myself. bravo and thanks for the effort! do you plan on doing a same analysis on how "bowler gave a match away" after being in a comfortable position either defending or in the first innings? cheers

  • Jeff Few on June 11, 2008, 23:21 GMT

    If you think international cricket is bad, you wanna look at village cricket. In our league the amount of times you see a pair of 50+ year old opening batsmen stonewall all 45 overs for a final score of 80ish for 0, with the teams big hitting all-rounders sat in the pavillion marking dot after dot in the scorebook, then they (the all rounders/bowlers) getting the blame for the defeat when the other team knock the eighty runs off in twenty overs is incredible!

  • Vekram on June 11, 2008, 23:25 GMT

    This was the match conceded by India after Sarfraz bowled a series of bouncers in the 38th over. I do not want to get into an argument with anyone. It is clear that the short pitched balls were over-used.....................Anyhow why should a captain concede a match when so close to the target. Bedi should take responsibility for that.

    Because Sarfraz could've broken someone's nose? Taken out a couple of teeth maybe? Ask Nari Contractor.

  • jigar on June 12, 2008, 1:43 GMT

    truely a wonderful analysis. sometimes between the 15th till 40th over teams take a nap. if you can concetrate on this aspect of one day games (15th till 40th over), it might help everyone better understand the 20-20 phenomenon.