THE CORDON HOME

BLOGS ARCHIVES
SELECT BLOG
May 17, 2009

Twenty20

T20 bowling - a lateral look

Anantha Narayanan
Chaminda Vaas got an early breakthrough again, Deccan Chargers v Delhi Daredevils, IPL, Durban, May 13, 2009
 © Associated Press
Enlarge

A hectic and harrowing few days have left me longing for an article which will not have over 100 responses daily, quite a few of them calling for my blood. Hence before I do the follow-up article to the Test batsmen one, I decided to do a simple one which will elicit few, but informed, responses and will be of interest to the discerning readers.

It is my pet theory that it does not matter which bowler the captain bowls in T20.

If the batsman sets his mind, any bowler will go for plenty. This has been substantiated by the happenings in the IPL. The bowlers who have gone for plenty (around 20 runs) are the experienced bowlers such as Flintoff (twice), Agarkar, Vettori (19), Sreesanth (thrice), Ishanth Sharma, Vaas (the 23-run last over) et al. The lesser bowlers also did go but not like this. Hence I decided to put this, possibly unsound, theory to test.

This analysis pertains to T20 International matches. Reluctantly I have come to the conclusion that the IPL is not going away and am building my data base. So the IPL analysis will follow later. I may not be a great fan of IPL, but that entity is a treasure-trove for analysis.

Again the selection criteria plays an important part. I have set the criteria as players who have bowled in a minimum of 3 matches. Since the maximum number of matches for a bowler is 17, this represents a sub-20% lower limit. Initially I set 5 matches as the criteria but enough bowlers did not come through. These and the "all bowlers" data is also summarised later. This is the only criteria I have set. The measure used for classification is Balls per (Bowler) match.

The BpM measure ranges from 24.0 for a few bowlers to around 10.0 for some others. 141 bowlers satisfy this criteria (bowled in 3 or more matches) and are available for analysis. Out of these, 65 bowlers have bowled 21.0 balls or more indicating that these are very regular bowlers. 14 bowlers have bowled 15 balls or less. The middle group, between 15 and 21 balls per match can be termed as somewhat regular bowlers. These limits are used only for some form of classification and are not set in stone. Now let us look at how these bowlers, as a group have performed.

Only bowlers who have bowled in minimum of 3 matches

BpM  Bow  Balls   Runs Wkts  St/Rt   RpO

Very regular bowlers >=21 65 9825 11245 535 18.36 6.87 Regular bowlers 15-21 62 6298 7752 331 19.03 7.39 Irregular bowlers <15 14 825 1181 41 20.12 7.14

Total 141 16948 20178 907 18.69 7.14

The averaging has been done within a group. The first group denotes bowlers who have almost always completed their spells barring very few matches. The third group denotes bowlers who have rarely completed their spells. The middle group comprises of bowlers who bowled regularly in a support manner. Quite a few of them might have completed their spells also.

What is amazing is that the Strike Rate and RpO among the three groups does not vary that much. There is a differential of less than 10% between the values. If anything, the third group has a better RpO than the middle group.

Compare these with the total figures. Again less than 10% variation.

It seems to give substance to my own conclusion that the lesser bowlers do as well or as badly as the better bowlers particularly during the later half of the innings. No captain would like to take the opening overs lightly.

Now we can see two other summaries. The first is the one where the bar is set higher, to a minimum of 5 matches in which the bowler should have bowled. The second is the one including all bowlers who ever delivered a ball. Hence there is an additional classification in the last table.

Only bowlers who have bowled in minimum of 5 matches

BpM  Bow  Balls   Runs Wkts  St/Rt   RpO

Very regular bowlers >=21 40 7904 9105 427 18.51 6.91 Regular bowlers 18-21 20 2988 3676 167 17.89 7.38 Irregular bowlers <18 14 1754 2394 86 20.40 8.19 Total 74 12646 15175 680 18.60 7.20

All matches - No limit

BpM  Bow  Balls   Runs Wkts  St/Rt   RpO

Very regular bowlers >=21 105 11146 12960 602 18.51 6.98 Regular bowlers 18-21 62 4910 5960 269 18.25 7.28 Irregular bowlers 12-18 52 2932 3934 143 20.50 8.05 Casual bowlers <12 32 421 623 22 19.14 8.88

Total 251 19409 23477 1036 18.73 7.26

The results are self-explanatory. There is very little difference between the groups, even in the last one.

Does it mean the bowlers are irrelevant in T20 matches and that the team can field 11 batsmen, a few of them bowling their part-time spin/pace. No way. The team might score 250 quite frequently but almost always the opposing team would knock off these runs in 18 overs.

It is also true that in places like South Africa, where the current IPL is a revelation, quite a few totals of around 150 have been defended successfully. In these places I would advocate a 4 full time bowlers + 7 batsmen (incl keeper). Flintoff/IrfanPathan//Kallis would be considered full-time bowlers. The fifth bowler quota could be met from amongst the batsmen who could bowl. One cannot take any chances in these types of pitches where low totals might have to be defended more often than not.

However the situation is different on the very good batting pitches like the subcontinent where the regular bowler is as likely to go for as many runs as the part-timer. Here it makes sense to play only 3 full-time bowlers and meet the fourth and fifth bowler quotas from amongst the 3/4 batsmen/all-rounders. This would leave enough batting fire-power to chase any total. The adage of "6 batsmen should do the job" might hold good in Tests and, to a lesser extent, ODIs but not in T20 because of the high risks needed to be undertaken by the batsmen. However one should not compromise on the three bowlers. That should comprise of a very good opening pair and a top-flight spinner.

Let me sum this in a different way. I think the captain should be able to say, in a subcontinent match, that his strengthened batting lineup would chase whatever total the other team puts up and of course, up his own team's target score, batting first, by about 20%. On the other hand, the captain in a match in South Africa, should be able to say that his better set of bowlers would defend even a lower total and of course, be able to lower his own team's target score, batting first, by about 20%. These ideas go against the normal thinking that in subcontinent one should strengthen the bowling and on bowler-friendly pitches strengthen the batting.

Let me illustrate my idea with two team selections.

India

In the sub-continent In South Africa et al

Gambhir Gambhir Sehwag Sehwag Raina Raina Yuvraj Singh Yuvraj Singh R.Sharma R.Sharma Dhoni Dhoni Y Pathan Y Pathan A Nayar / Badrinath P Ojha Harbhajan Harbhajan Zaheer Khan Zaheer Khan R.P.Singh R.P.Singh

The only difference is at no.8 where in the sub-continent a batsman Abhishek Nayar/Badrinath plays while at South Africa, the bowler Ojha plays. These may not be the exact players to consider, but the reader should get the drift. The underlying assumption is that Ojha might go for as many runs as a combination of Nayar/Sharma but Nayar or Badrinath would give the batting edge. A similar exercise for Australia.
Australia

In the sub-continent In South Africa et al

Haddin Haddin Clarke Clarke Ponting Ponting M Hussey M Hussey Symonds Symonds Watson Watson Hopes Hopes D Hussey / Warner Hilfenhaus Johnson Johnson Lee Lee Bracken Bracken

Here the choice could be between D.Hussey/Warner who are primarily batsmen and Hilfenhaus, a bowler. D Hussey could as well bowl a few overs in India as Hilfenhaus.

The choice for Sri Lanka could be between Kandamby/Silva (batsman) and Thushara (bowler). For England it could be between Mascarenhas and Anderson. For Pakistan the choice could be between Fawad Alam and Shoaib Akhtar. And so on.

Umar Gul, Vettori, Afridi, Stuart Clark, Abdur Razzak, RP Singh, Shoaib Malik et al are representative of very good T20 bowlers and bowlers like these and others cannot easily be replaced by the casual bowlers.

To all the readers:

I have mentioned in my replies to your comments that all my analysis is based on the scorecard data since I do not have access to the proprietary ball-by-ball data. However I have seen that there is quite a lot of over-based data available in public domain.

I also realize that to do a proper analysis of the bowlers and their deployment, it is necessary for me to use what is available in the public domain and develop my own over-based data.

I have started work on this and once that work is over, expected to take about a week, I should be able to do much more in-depth analysis of T20 and IPL matches and then we can look at this particular analysis segment, amongst others, with lot more clarity. The middle overs, for that matter, the early and end overs, will cease to be a mystery.

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 ganesh on (May 28, 2009, 7:22 GMT)

Its simple, at death overs mostly captains have given ball to exp bowlers like R.P,Munaf,Vaas etc...So there names are in top of list of most expensive bowlers. And anyway no body is perfect.....even if ur very good bowler in most of the matches there will some odd day when u will be surely very expensive.

Posted by Vijay on (May 23, 2009, 23:32 GMT)

Ananth, Can you repeat the same analysis with a different classification of bowlers and see how it looks? Here's the classification I suggest: a) Strike bowlers - at least 3 overs i.e. >18 balls b) Support bowlers - at least 1 over but not more than 3 i.e. 6

Posted by Vishal on (May 23, 2009, 19:06 GMT)

"The results are self-explanatory. There is very little difference between the groups, even in the last one. " Common! there is a difference of >1 run per over between very regular bowlers and irregular bowlers (last table) and almost 2 runs per over between very regular and casual bowler. That means if in a 20 overs match a team of irregular bowlers is conceding 20 more runs/innings (now if you look at the margin of victory and defeat isn't 20 significant??) The case becomes totally obvious when you compare very regular bowlers to team of causal bowlers the run differential is (20 x 1.9)= 38 runs!!!

Posted by Nick on (May 21, 2009, 18:38 GMT)

Its not about what the score is after the 9th over, its about what the bowler concedes in the 9th over. Either way a 23 run over reflects badly and a 3 run over looks good. in any data set you are going to have outliers and strays, (maidens, 17 run overs) but i'm sure we can agree that on average more runs will be scored in the 18th over than the average score for the 7th over. [[ Nick The more I think about it, your point makes more sense. Looking at each over in isolation gives us 20 sets of data to work with. The problem only is the shortage of data. We have not even crossed 100 T20 matches yet. But these analyses would become relevant as we get more data. Shahid Africi has bowled 61 overs in T20 (the most). Mostly he would have bowled the middle overs. So there is a strong chance that he bowled, say, the 9th/10th/11th overs around 7/8 times. Against a total population of around 100 overs this type of analysis offers good possibilites. I will look at it after I build up the data. Thanks This is genuinely a lateral approach Ananth: ]]

Posted by Youvi on (May 21, 2009, 4:09 GMT)

I believe T20 is going thru a phase where it is still to be figured out what really works so one could say with some basis a particular team has the best chance of being the champion. It doesn't matter whether it is IPL or T20 world cup. It seems therefore at this juncture in T20's evolution luck (or the unknown factor) plays a significant role. One doesn't seem to know what one is going to get on a given day. It is almost as if statistics at least the way these are applied, are not truly reflective of the T20 game itself. [[ Youvi, You are correct. Traditional playing methods do not apply to T20 nor traditional methods of analysis. I am hoping next week to come out with something different for both IPL and T20. Ananth: ]]

Posted by Nicholas on (May 20, 2009, 20:03 GMT)

Here is an interesting idea (i'd do it myslef, but have neither the software, data nor time).

Take each over, ie: 9th over of an innings. for each bowler who has ever bowled a 9th over, calculate the average 9th over excluding that bowler, then calculate the average deviation of that bowler from the average over. sum them up per bowler. You now have an average deviation for each bowler. Now plot these figures against an experience measure, perhaps total overs bowled or wickets taken (try either?) then see if these fit some sort of Regression or trend.

i believe this method will account for discrepincies in which over is being bowled, as well as sort out the need for grouping bowlers by some arbitrary allocation. I also believe that it may indeed produce results that show that experience will indeed prosper. [[ Nicholas The problem, in addition to getting the data for each over (which I am working on), is that the score at, say, end of 9th over could vary from 32 for 5 to 97 for 0 (real IPL situations). Ananth: ]]

Posted by Pat on (May 20, 2009, 8:18 GMT)

A good interesting topic and I appreciate the small sample size and the limited access, so I'll nit-pick:

Australia

In the sub-continent In South Africa et al

Haddin Haddin Clarke Clarke Ponting Ponting M Hussey M Hussey Symonds Symonds Watson Watson Hopes Hopes D Hussey / Warner Hilfenhaus Johnson Johnson Lee Lee Bracken Bracken

The subcontinent team has 5 players selected on bowling (Lee, Bracken, Johnson, Hopes and Watson), whereas the SA team has 6 (+ Hilfenhaus). It seems au-contraire to your theory with these teams.

Posted by Adam on (May 19, 2009, 15:13 GMT)

Firstly - I don't agree at all with the extremely simplistic idea that an increase in RPO automatically means that T20 is "a batsman's game"; all it means is that we need different standards of excellence. A dominating bowling performance can win a match as easily as a dominating batting performance. The original analysis merely shows that those bowlers bowling in the middle innings (where on average less runs are scored per over), may only bowl 2 or 3 overs rather than finishing their spell (which we already knew). To attempt to read more into the data than that is dishonest. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the bowlers we might have expected to succeed don't necessarily do so - that says more about our faulty logic than a problem intrinsic to the format itself. T20 is a game similar in style to baseball - where both teams have a roughly even chance of winning any one game - which is why baseball is played over long series of 5 or 7 games, so the better team has time to emerge.

Posted by Kamlesh on (May 19, 2009, 14:31 GMT)

There is hardly any difference in averages for the regular and not so regular bowlers. But if we see the differences between the economy rates, regular bowlers are quite miser compared to non-regular bowlers. Difference is 1 per over between very-regular and irregular bowlers and almost 2 per over between very-regular and casual bowlers. I don't agree with the theory of fielding a side with 3 full-time bowlers in subcontinent. As it would cost around 8*2=16 extra runs and hardly a no.8 player get a chance to bat. Your South African idea might work as it would cost just 8 run, but crucily a extra batsman would be handy in bowler friendly condition.

Posted by BASS 1298 on (May 19, 2009, 12:56 GMT)

The analysis was fantabulous as always.as everyone say T20 is an absolute batsmen's game and this form does not judge a bowler's ability.R.P singh was the one who got 4 scalps in his first match against KKR and the same person was hit around the park in the second match against the same team.so it is really hard to speculate the ability of a bowler.It absolutetly depends on the batsman he faces and the mood of the batsman.Lee was exceptional in few matches but could not face gilly and symo though his team won.And when the best of the lots are hit muscled away to boundaries it is absolutely difficult to say who is good and who is bad.

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