THE CORDON HOME

BLOGS ARCHIVES
SELECT BLOG
November 30, 2008

ODIs

An analysis of ODI matches

Anantha Narayanan
Ajantha Mendis is intensity personified during a practice session, Colombo, August 23, 2008
 © AFP
Enlarge

This is a statistical summary of the 2784 matches which have been played over the past 36 years, somewhat similar to the Test analysis I had done earlier. Certain changes have been done to the analysis to bring out the nuances of ODIs. As I have indicated in earlier posts, these factors will be incorporated into the ODI batting and ODI bowling analysis which will be done henceforth.

I wanted to incorporate the Duckworth/Lewis (or its equivalent) calculations in ODI matches into the article. However I feel that it warrants a separate article in the light of the farce during the fourth ODI between India and England in Cuttack.

The six periods have been constructed taking into account the number of matches. It is possible minor adjustments will bring major rule changes in sync with the periods. However that would leave the number of matches unbalanced.

Let us get into the analysis of the tables. These tables are current upto ODI #2784, the fourth ODI between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka.

1. Match analysis (Runs/Wkts per match, Rpo, Rpw)

Period    Mats  R/M  W/M  Rpo  Rpw|Mats   Balls    Runs   Wkts

1971-1983 230 386 14.1 4.17 27.4 | 230 127653 88731 3236 1984-1989 368 393 13.6 4.42 28.8 | 368 196071 144445 5017 1990-1995 429 400 13.8 4.43 29.0 | 429 232499 171613 5921 1996-2000 635 426 14.4 4.71 29.6 | 635 344424 270484 9147 2001-2005 647 426 14.1 4.85 30.1 | 647 340291 275350 9149 2006-2008 475 424 14.4 4.95 29.6 | 475 244589 201631 6820

All ODIs 2784 414 14.1 4.65 29.3 |2784 1485527 1152254 39290

The wickets per match has been reasonably steady over the years. There is a 10% increase over the past few years in the runs per match. However, the major change is in runs per over (rpo), which has shown an 18% increase over the years. The current rpo figure is about 10% over the all-time average. The runs per wicket has remained almost the same over the past 25 years.

There must be very little doubt the rpo has shown an increase primarily due to the change in the treatment of the opening overs and Powerplays.

2. Match/Inns Analysis (Low & High inns scores)

Period    %I<100  %I>300 %M>300x2 |Inns  I<100  I>300  M>300x2

1971-1983 7.41 2.86 0.00 | 455 10 13 0 1984-1989 5.49 0.55 0.00 | 729 9 4 0 1990-1995 4.44 2.23 0.47 | 853 10 19 2 1996-2000 1.98 5.48 1.73 |1259 8 69 11 2001-2005 5.77 7.72 2.01 |1283 24 99 13 2006-2008 6.47 10.87 3.58 | 938 20 102 17

All ODIs 4.90 5.55 1.54 |5517 81 306 43

The percentage of (all out) innings below 100 follows a peculiar pattern. It’s very high during the two end periods and very low during one particular period (1996-2000). Frankly, I cannot explain the sub-2% figure.

The 300-plus total, after being virtually non-existent during the 1980s, has now moved to over 10%. In other words, more than one in every 10 innings is a 300-plus innings. The batsmen never had it so good. Spare a thought for the bowlers, shackled in every which way.

I am intrigued when I look at the last few years. There is a high percentage of totals below 100 and an extraordinarily high number of totals above 300. Maybe it indicates a number of weak teams and a few strong teams.

The first match in which both teams exceeded 300 runs occurred in 1992 between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka in New Plymouth. Since then it has happened quite frequently, with high number of occurrences in recent years.

3. Opening partnerships analysis

Period    Open OP100+ OPSub10   |OpPShps 100+ Sub10  Runs

1971-1983 34.9 7.0% 25.5% | 455 32 116 15863 1984-1989 34.9 6.3% 27.0% | 729 46 197 25461 1990-1995 35.8 7.3% 26.7% | 853 62 228 30507 1996-2000 35.3 6.8% 26.9% | 1259 85 339 44462 2001-2005 34.5 8.1% 30.6% | 1283 104 392 44226 2006-2008 33.7 7.0% 32.4% | 938 66 304 31621

All ODIs 34.8 7.2% 28.6% | 5517 395 1576 192140

The opening partnerships have averaged around 35 over the years with very little variations. Similarly there has been a 7% occurrence of 100-plus opening partnerships through the different periods. It is only in the failed opening partnerships that there has been a significant 20-25% increase during the current decade. This may again be a reflection of more weaker teams.

4. Extras Analysis - per 300 balls (Extras/Byes/Leg-byes/No-balls/Wides)

Period    E/3b B/3b L/3b N/3b W/3b|Extras Byes Leg-byes No-balls
Wides

1971-1983 15.1 1.8 8.0 2.7 2.6| 6446 780 3419 1137 1110 1984-1989 16.9 1.8 8.4 2.5 4.2| 11031 1161 5520 1605 2745 1990-1995 16.9 1.1 7.2 2.7 6.0| 13060 834 5547 2063 4616 1996-2000 17.7 1.0 6.0 3.1 7.6| 20325 1153 6901 3547 8724 2001-2005 17.9 1.0 5.4 3.4 8.1| 20278 1142 6071 3879 9171 2006-2008 17.4 1.0 5.1 2.4 8.9| 14172 800 4143 1970 7244

All ODIs 17.2 1.2 6.4 2.9 6.8| 85312 5870 31601 14201 33610

This time I have computed the extras per 300 balls, as it constitutes being a normal completed innings. The extras per 300 balls has remained fairly static over the years. Byes have dropped significantly after the first two periods and then remained static. This has occurred despite the wicketkeeper standing up to a number of medium-pacers. Similarly, the leg-byes per match was quite high during the first two periods and then dropped off. One possible reason could be the deployment of more spinners after the initial two periods.

The number of wides per 300 balls has increased drastically over the years, certainly because of very strict interpretation of wides by the umpires. It is true the number of off-side wides has increased significantly over the past few years. Also, virtually no allowance is given for any leg-side deviation.

Now we come to no-balls. Very interesting indeed. The last three years has seen a drastic drop in no-balls per match. This is not because the bowlers have suddenly become more attentive about where to land their feet. The reduction has been primarily caused by the free-hit rule, which penalises bowlers to a great extent. While not accepting that this is necessarily a correct law change - it penalises an already-beleagured bowler more - there is no denying the bowlers are now a lot more careful about overstepping.

The recent rule changes also mean that there are more transgressions covered for declaring no-balls, such as short deliveries and deliberate high full tosses. This would also contribute to the increase in no-balls.

5. Results Analysis - (Results/HomeWins/AwayWins/NoRes)

Period    FbtW SbtW OthW NoRes |Mats  FbtW  SbtW  OthW  NoRes

1971-1983 47.8 48.3 0.4 3.5 | 230 110 111 1 8 1984-1989 42.9 53.0 0.5 3.5 | 368 158 195 2 13 1990-1995 51.0 44.5 0.0 4.4 | 429 219 191 0 19 1996-2000 46.5 49.1 0.2 4.3 | 635 295 312 1 27 2001-2005 49.3 46.2 0.2 4.3 | 647 319 299 1 28 2006-2008 46.1 49.1 0.0 4.8 | 475 219 233 0 23

First a summary of the "Other wins" matches.

ODI # 56: Conceded by India against Pakistan as a gesture of protest.
ODI # 435: India defeated Pakistan on the basis of losing fewer wickets.
ODI # 522: Pakistan defeated Australia on the basis of losing fewer wickets.
ODI # 1081: Sri Lanka won by default against India because of Calcutta
crowd disturbances.
ODI # 1724: Conceded by England against Pakistan as a sporting gesture.

During two of the periods (early 1990s and early 2000s), the teams batting first won more matches than teams chasing. During the other four periods, more teams have won chasing than defending. Overall also there seems to be an edge for the team batting second. This difference seems to be more pronounced during the past few years. The number of "No results" has also increased significantly, probably caused by the obsession to play matches during all 12 months, irrespective of weather conditions.

1. Batting analysis (Right & Left)

Period    R-Avg L-Avg T-Avg|R-Inns R-Runs|L-Inns L-Runs|T-Inns
T-Runs

1971-1983 25.00 27.21 25.48| 3125 63208| 847 19077| 3972 82285 1984-1989 26.99 24.89 26.60| 5174 110394| 1110 23020| 6284 133414 1990-1995 26.20 28.50 26.80| 5514 114697| 1844 43856| 7358 158553 1996-2000 25.59 31.74 27.39| 7980 165169| 3211 84990|11191 250159 2001-2005 26.64 30.95 27.90| 8068 172554| 3184 82518|11252 255072 2006-2008 26.53 30.20 27.51| 6145 132316| 2189 55143| 8334 187459

All ODIs 26.23 29.86 27.18|36006 758338|12385 308604|48391 1066942

Barring the first period, the batting average seems to have settled around a value of 27.

As in Test matches, the left-handers have a higher average (by a margin of 15%). Most of the reader comments on this topic will be applicable. Note the very high average for left-handers during the most recent period.

2. Batting analysis 2 (Batting strike-rate - Left & Right)

Period    R-SR L-SR T-SR|R-Runs R-Balls|L-Runs LBalls| T-Runs
T-Balls

1971-1983 63.6 64.5 63.8| 63208 99457| 19077 29586| 82285 129043 1984-1989 68.0 64.0 67.2|110394 162407| 23020 35986| 133414 198393 1990-1995 67.1 68.0 67.3|114697 170985| 43856 64480| 158553 235465 1996-2000 70.8 73.8 71.8|165169 233336| 84990 115219| 250159 348555 2001-2005 73.4 75.9 74.2|172554 235245| 82518 108727| 255072 343972 2006-2008 76.3 75.7 76.1|132316 173455| 55143 72877| 187459 246332

All ODIs 70.6 72.3 71.0|758338 1074885|308604 426875|1066942 1501760

The scoring-rate was quite low during the first three periods and has now picked up to be around the 76-mark. There is a significant variation of around 20% over the years. Barring one period, the left-handers seem to be scoring slightly faster than right-handers.

3. Bowling analysis 1 (Bowling average - Pace & Spin)

Period    P-Avg S-Avg T-Avg|PWkts  PRuns|SWkts  SRuns| TWkts
TRuns

1971-1983 27.49 34.51 28.64| 2402 66042| 471 16254| 2873 82296 1984-1989 30.50 34.86 31.63| 3227 98432| 1124 39185| 4351 137617 1990-1995 30.84 36.13 32.25| 3754 115771| 1369 49460| 5123 165231 1996-2000 31.69 34.93 32.76| 5357 169762| 2653 92665| 8010 262427 2001-2005 31.20 35.88 32.50| 5896 183949| 2277 81697| 8173 265646 2006-2008 31.24 33.56 31.77| 4734 147904| 1386 46509| 6120 194413

All ODIs 30.82 35.10 31.97|25370 781860| 9280 325770|34650 1107630

The bowling average follows the same pattern as batting strike-rate. Quite low during the first period and then plateauing around 31 during the next five periods.

As expected the averages for pace bowlers are lower - only over 10% - when compared to spinners. The last period, however, has seen a narrowing of this gap. The trend of depending on spinners has also picked up as evidenced by the recently concluded Zimbabwe-Sri Lanka series, where both teams had two fast bowlers and an assortment of four to five spinners.

4. Bowling analysis 2 (Bowling strike-rate - Pace & Spin)

Period    P-SR S-SR T-SR|PWkts  PBalls|SWkts SBalls| TWkts
TBalls

1971-1983 43.2 50.7 44.4| 2402 103758| 471 23895| 2873 127653 1984-1989 43.7 48.9 45.1| 3227 141092| 1124 54979| 4351 196071 1990-1995 43.8 49.8 45.4| 3754 164280| 1369 68219| 5123 232499 1996-2000 41.5 46.0 43.0| 5357 222455| 2653 121969| 8010 344424 2001-2005 39.2 46.7 41.3| 5896 230917| 2277 106387| 8173 337304 2006-2008 38.3 43.8 39.5| 4734 181269| 1386 60668| 6120 241937

All ODIs 41.1 47.0 42.7|25370 1043771| 9280 436117|34650 1479888

Surprisingly, there seems to be a distinct improvement of bowler strike-rates during the past few years. Again, one cannot but point to the number of weak teams playing one-day cricket.

The strike-rate for pace bowlers are 15% better those for spinners. Recently, spinners seem to be striking better, no doubt aided by Ajantha Mendis, who has taken 48 wickets in his first 17 matches at a strike-rate of a wicket every 16 balls. (Yes, you read it right, 16.)

5. Bowling analysis 3 (Bowling rpo - Pace & Spin)

Period    PRpo SRpo TRpo| PRuns  PBalls| SRuns SBalls|  TRuns
TBalls

1971-1983 3.82 4.08 3.87| 66042 103758| 16254 23895| 82296 127653 1984-1989 4.19 4.28 4.21| 98432 141092| 39185 54979| 137617 196071 1990-1995 4.23 4.35 4.26|115771 164280| 49460 68219| 165231 232499 1996-2000 4.58 4.56 4.57|169762 222455| 92665 121969| 262427 344424 2001-2005 4.78 4.61 4.73|183949 230917| 81697 106387| 265646 337304 2006-2008 4.90 4.60 4.82|147904 181269| 46509 60668| 194413 241937

All ODIs 4.49 4.48 4.49|781860 1043771|325770 436117|1107630 1479888

The rpo seems to have increased by about 5% during recent years - not a very big change. The surprise is that the all-matches rpo figure for pace bowlers and spinners is almost the same.

6. Dismissals analysis

a. Bowled - (% and per match)

Period Bowled Wkts % of Tot Bow/Mtch

1971-1983 813 2873 28.3 3.5 1984-1989 1177 4351 27.1 3.2 1990-1995 1201 5123 23.4 2.8 1996-2000 1771 8010 22.1 2.8 2001-2005 1762 8173 21.6 2.7 2006-2008 1251 6120 20.4 2.6

All ODIs 7975 34650 23.0 2.9

b. Lbw - (% and per match)

Period Lbw Wkts % of Tot Lbw/Mtch

1971-1983 289 2873 10.1 1.3 1984-1989 382 4351 8.8 1.0 1990-1995 497 5123 9.7 1.2 1996-2000 820 8010 10.2 1.3 2001-2005 932 8173 11.4 1.4 2006-2008 752 6120 12.3 1.6

All ODIs 3672 34650 10.6 1.3

c. Caught - (% and per match)

Period Ct Others Wkts % of Tot COt/Mtch

1971-1983 1234 2873 43.0 5.4 1984-1989 1944 4351 44.7 5.3 1990-1995 2336 5123 45.6 5.4 1996-2000 3800 8010 47.4 6.0 2001-2005 3843 8173 47.0 5.9 2006-2008 2856 6120 46.7 6.0

All ODIs 16013 34650 46.2 5.8

d. Stumped - (% and per match)

Period Stumped Wkts % of Tot Bow/Mtch

1971-1983 54 2873 1.9 0.2 1984-1989 141 4351 3.2 0.4 1990-1995 183 5123 3.6 0.4 1996-2000 317 8010 4.0 0.5 2001-2005 222 8173 2.7 0.3 2006-2008 194 6120 3.2 0.4

All ODIs 1111 34650 3.2 0.4

e. Ct by Wk - (% and per match)

Period Ct by Wk Wkts % of Tot CWk/Mtch

1971-1983 443 2873 15.4 1.9 1984-1989 648 4351 14.9 1.8 1990-1995 838 5123 16.4 2.0 1996-2000 1183 8010 14.8 1.9 2001-2005 1386 8173 17.0 2.1 2006-2008 1016 6120 16.6 2.1

All ODIs 5514 34650 15.9 2.0

f. Runouts - (% and per match)

Period Runouts Wkts % of Tot RO/Mtch

1971-1983 356 2873 12.4 1.5 1984-1989 661 4351 15.2 1.8 1990-1995 793 5123 15.5 1.8 1996-2000 1121 8010 14.0 1.8 2001-2005 887 8173 10.9 1.4 2006-2008 637 6120 10.4 1.3

All ODIs 4455 34650 12.9 1.6

Summarised comments on dismissals

1. While the drop is not as pronounced as Test matches, the percentage of batsmen bowled, which had been high during the first two periods, has fallen to around 20% now.

2. There has been a slight increase in the lbw percentage over the years - possibly reverse-swing coming into play.

3. As expected, the percentage of catches is quite high and has remained around 45% over the years.

4. The percentage of stumpings was quite high at 4% during the late 1990s but has slipped since then. Even now an attacking spinner like Mendis, with 48 wickets in 17 matches, seems to depend more on direct dismissals such as bowled and leg-before wicket.

5. Wicketkeeper catches have only varied slightly and are now a bit higher than the all-matches average percentage.

6. Run-outs peaked to over 15% during the decade 1985-1995 but have dropped off since then. Possibly the introduction of the third umpire seems to favour the batsmen in border-line decisions.

A separate article on Duckworth/Lewis will follow during the coming weeks.

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

RSS Feeds: Anantha Narayanan

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by dc on (January 3, 2009, 6:24 GMT)

i believe the statistical analysis is wonderful yet i am surprised at some of the results. on the matter of the declining rate of run-outs i hypothesize that firstly in the 1980's, batsmen certainly near the end of an innings were expected to run for nearly everything, suicidal runs for byes and the will to sacrifice oneself for the good of the team was probably more prevalent then. when introducing the matter of third umpire referrals one must consider that with less controversy as replays were less conclusive during the early days of cricket, umpires may indeed be more inclined to raise the finger without the fear of scrutiny, whereby batsmen who actually made their ground were far more frequently given out, and the matter of this -- via commentary was that wrong decisions weren't criticized as replays didn't exist for umpires to rely on, therefore gave umpires free-will when raising the finger instead of referring it a colleague with dozens of cameras to look at the runout through

Posted by Aditya on (December 26, 2008, 20:15 GMT)

"The percentage of (all out) innings below 100 follows a peculiar pattern. It’s very high during the two end periods and very low during one particular period (1996-2000). Frankly, I cannot explain the sub-2% figure." There might be ? reasons for this might be : As most of the sub 100 scores are made during the world cup the world cup of '96 was held in the subcontinent with real flat pitches (slow and unresponsive) so it was easier for the weaker teams to cross hundred as they might have been left in tatters by the opening spells by the fast bowlers and also the lesser number of minnows in the '99 world cup in comparison to the 2003 and 2007 world cup (as the pitches have considerably improved for batting in world cups from '96) and also the emergence of Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe as contenders in a match rather than minnows. the fielding restrictions were also fruitful from this period so this might have allowed some minnows to score quickly thereby crossing the 100 barrier.

Posted by dsachit on (December 26, 2008, 5:32 GMT)

If already not published, a team wise analysis(eg: Australia - overall run rates,strike rates etc...) would be great.

Posted by Rishi on (December 7, 2008, 8:05 GMT)

I am glad you did this. I did ask in the last blog of yours what was the average runs per wicket and I had a strong feeling (despite your comment) that as we went into 90s and beyond, runs per wicket came more easy. But, I admit, you were right, I was wrong. Batsman have not gone better in terms of overall scoring per innings, just that they have been more effective per over rate. For me, that itself sufficed the importance of this analysis. Good job. [[ Almost all the rule changes have benefited the batsmen. It is not surprinsing that the batsmen have found it easy to up the scoring rate. Who knows what Richards & company would have done with 20 overs of Power plays, free-hits, shorter boundaries,a very strict interpretation of wides et al. Ananth: ]]

Posted by tony on (December 4, 2008, 17:21 GMT)

I am intrigued by the chasing statistic and can't help but wonder if this result still holds in matches that are not dew-affected. Given that dew is a particularly important factor on the sub-continent where a disproportionate number of ODIs are played (most especially in recent times) - it is possible that the sub-continental results have skewed the stats.

I seem to recall that batting under lights used to be considered pretty hard - at least in Australia. Have batsmen just gotten used to it?

Are there enough matches to permit separation into day matches, day/night (no dew), and day/night (with dew)? [[ Tony, Only the day/night information and not dew. I will incorporate that in the Toss related article I have mentioned (in response to Ankush). Ananth: ]]

Posted by Jeff on (December 2, 2008, 10:49 GMT)

Regarding your comment on the rpo figures for pace and spin being so similar - I think this a case where the "all-matches" figure is extremely misleading.

You can clearly see that in the early days, pace bowlers had a much better economy rate - this i'm sure was mainly due to the fact that teams in the 70s/80s/early 90s batted the first part of an ODI much like a test - ie somewhat cautiously, hoping not to lose wkts. This would have benefitted pace bowlers who bowled most of the early overs.

Then, with the Sri Lankan influence and the advent of powerplays, the situation has been reversed. Teams now attack more in the opening overs and seek to consolidate in the middle overs. This will have a negative impact on pace bowlers, who still routinely take the new ball (and also bowl at the death)

Unless powerplays change, i would expect the "all-matches" rpo will move further in the favour of spin over the coming years. [[ Jeff, There is this constant problem with most all-time averages. One reason why it is better to look at trends.. Ananth: ]]

Posted by Jeff on (December 2, 2008, 10:39 GMT)

Ananth,

I think you may well be correct that the better fielding teams have more direct hits but also, maybe, the better batting teams (or at least the most tactically astute teams) suffer fewer direct hits.

I think that overall fielding standards and running standards have improved at similar rates over the past decade or so, hence why the proportion of run outs has remained constant. I'd imagine that this trend will continue.

Posted by Ankush on (December 2, 2008, 4:08 GMT)

Pretty Interesting. A wonderful analysis will be what % of times does the team winning the toss won the match as well. This will really highlight how critical TOSS is in a cricket game. [[ Ankush, The toss, per se, is almost irrelevant when taken in an overall context. It is the decision whether to bat or field which is relevant and that factor has been included in the article. However there is a side analysis possible. What is the correlation, if any, which exists between winning the toss and winning the match. Again with very weak teams it does not matter who wins the toss. So this has to be an analysis only amongst the top 10 teams (I am not going to remove Bang/Zim from any such calculations). Because of the special nature it could very well be a separate post. Ananth: ]]

Posted by Jonathan on (December 1, 2008, 23:05 GMT)

The low number of sub-100 scores is around the time that there were the least "weaker teams" playing ODIs, especially regularly.

With no results, I think you are right about the tendency to play cricket at any time, but in new countries - Scotland and Ireland seem to host a disproportionate number of n/r or abandoned games. The increase is all the more remarkable, given the reductions in number of overs needed to give a result. [[ agreed, Jonathan, and the stupidity of organizing a tournament during the peak of monsoon in Sri lanka, summer months in India. the rainy oct-nov in southern India et al. Greed knows no bounds. Otherwise why a 7-match series between India and England. Ananth: ]]

Posted by Jeff on (December 1, 2008, 14:18 GMT)

My own theory on the declining rate of run outs is that it's down to a combination of the increase in the standards of fielding and a (delayed) rise in the tactical awareness of batting teams...

In the 80's and early 90's, one day cricket was driving a big improvement in the standard of fielding. However, ODIs (and one day matches in general in most countries - except maybe England)were still not that common, so batsmen were still primarily geared up towards the longer form and therefore batted and ran much like they did in 1st class & test matches. This resulted in the rise in run out % from 1970 to the mid 90's.

From then onwards, ODIs exploded and teams became more focused and developed specific tactics for one day cricket (including better awareness of fielders/fielding and better judging of runs.) This then drove the % of run outs down (despite the fact that fielding has probably continued to improve.)

D/L has also helped teams pace inns better, reducing needless run outs [[ Jeff Probably a better explanation than my own "Third umpire" theory. However, as you yourself have pointed it, the improvement in fielding standards should have offset this. Don't you think the better fielding teams tend to get more direct hits nowadays. A nice conundrum to have. Ananth: ]]

Comments have now been closed for this article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Anantha Narayanan
Anantha spent the first half of his four-decade working career with corporates like IBM, Shaw Wallace, NCR, Sime Darby and the Spinneys group in IT-related positions. In the second half, he has worked on cricket simulation, ratings, data mining, analysis and writing, amongst other things. He was the creator of the Wisden 100 lists, released in 2001. He has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket, and worked extensively with Maruti Motors, Idea Cellular and Castrol on their performance ratings-related systems. He is an armchair connoisseur of most sports. His other passion is tennis, and he thinks Roger Federer is the greatest sportsman to have walked on earth.

All articles by this writer