THE CORDON HOME

BLOGS ARCHIVES
SELECT BLOG
June 4, 2009

Twenty20

T20 Internationals - an analytical review

Anantha Narayanan
Brendon McCullum pulls, New Zealand v India, 3rd ODI, Christchurch, March 8, 2009
 © Getty Images
Enlarge

1. Potpourri of T20 information

Given below are some interesting facts. Detailed tables for these can be viewed using Cricinfo's Statistics section.

1. McCullum is the leading run-scorer with 582 runs.
2. Symonds has the highest strike rate amongst batsman who have scored 100 runs. He has a strike rate of 169.35 while scoring 337 runs.
3. Jayasuriya has secured 5 MOM awards.
4. Umar Gul has captured the maximum wickets, 24 in all.
5. Ray Price (Zimbabwe) has the best economy rates among bowlers who have bowled 10 overs. His economy rate is 3.25.
6. Gayle is the only batsman to have scored a century. His score was 117.
7. Yuvraj's innings of 58 in 16 balls is the fastest in T20s.
8. Gillespie (New Zealand) has the best bowling figures, 2.5-0-7-4.
9. Cusack (Ireland) has the most accurate bowling analysis in T20s, 3.0-1-3-2.
10. Anderson (England) has the most expensive bowling T20 bowling spell ever, 4-0-64-1.
11. Sri Lanka has scored the highest total in T20s, 260 against Kenya.
12. Kenya, in addition to above, also has the lowest innings total against Ireland, a paltry 67.
13. South Africa chased a total of 205 made by West Indies.
14. Ireland defended a total of 43 (9 overs) against Bermuda.

For the 2007 World Cup, the significant top performers are listed below.

1. The maximum runs were scored by Hayden with 265.
2. The best Runs per Innings figure was Hayden's 44.17 in 6 innings, including 4 x 50s. 3. The best strike rate was Yuvraj Singh's 1.947 (148 runs in 76 balls).
4. Umar Gul captured the maximum wickets, having accounted for 13 dismissals.
5. The best bowling average was achieved by Chigumbura of Zimbabwe who captured 7 wickets at 7.29.
6. Vettori bowled most economically with a RPO figure of 5.33 in 24 overs.

2. A re-look at the Par Score

Sometime back I had a look at the Par Score for T20s in which I had suggested a Par Score as 165. I had increased this to 170+ for the sub-continent. I have looked at this again, only for the 25 matches of the World Cup. Looking at the 12 teams which scored 160 and above, 8 teams won defending such totals while 4 totals were chased successfully. This gives a very reasonable 66.7% winning chance and 160 can very well be taken as a Par Score for this World Cup, which will be played in England. On the other hand, increasing the Par Score to 165 gives the teams a chance to win in 7 out of 8 (87.5%). So I would say that the Par Score should be between 160-165. 160 should be sufficient, the few extra runs increase the chances of winning significantly.

3. T20-Intls: Analysis of 20-over runs conceded and wickets captured

Ov  Num    Runs Max   Avge    SD   SEM   Wkts   Avge    SD   SEM
# Overs

1 174.0 1004 19 5.77 3.47 0.26 40 0.23 0.46 0.03 2 174.0 1199 25 6.89 4.69 0.36 42 0.24 0.49 0.04 3 174.0 1333 18 7.66 4.52 0.34 57 0.33 0.56 0.04 4 174.0 1319 20 7.58 4.82 0.37 54 0.31 0.51 0.04 5 174.0 1466 22 8.43 4.86 0.37 37 0.21 0.46 0.04 6 173.5 1376 21 7.92 4.83 0.37 67 0.39 0.58 0.04 7 173.0 1137 22 6.57 3.94 0.30 47 0.27 0.48 0.04 8 172.4 1163 24 6.74 3.95 0.30 49 0.28 0.50 0.04 9 172.0 1077 19 6.26 3.61 0.28 49 0.28 0.52 0.04 10 169.0 1157 20 6.85 3.92 0.30 45 0.27 0.52 0.04 11 166.5 1090 19 6.53 3.65 0.28 60 0.36 0.54 0.04 12 163.5 1191 18 7.27 4.28 0.33 48 0.29 0.49 0.04 13 163.0 1234 25 7.57 4.64 0.36 52 0.32 0.53 0.04 14 161.5 1099 21 6.79 4.07 0.32 63 0.39 0.57 0.04 15 157.2 1181 24 7.51 4.45 0.35 63 0.40 0.53 0.04 16 155.5 1253 26 8.04 5.32 0.43 58 0.37 0.59 0.05 17 152.1 1280 21 8.41 5.04 0.41 71 0.47 0.66 0.05 18 147.0 1145 24 7.79 4.92 0.40 70 0.48 0.57 0.05 19 132.0 1184 36 8.97 6.08 0.52 76 0.58 0.71 0.06 20 109.3 1052 21 9.61 4.96 0.45 105 0.96 0.84 0.08

A new statistical measure, suggested by Aneesh Kulkarni, the Standard Error of the Mean (SEM) has been taken. This measure is a function of the Standard Deviation and the number of samples, in this case the number of overs. The SD and SEM are related measures. The SD refers to the actual values (could range from 0 to 36) while the SEM refers to the expected variation of the mean values. Readers can contribute, if they want, on this measure.

a. There is a spurt in the second over, indicating that the first over was used to get the bearings. There is marked spurt in the 5th over, possibly because the batsmen take couple of overs to familiarize themselves and cut loose in anticipation of the removal of the fielding restrictions.

b. There seems to be no significant change between the 10th and 11th over since there is no artificial commercial break after the 10th over.

c. There seems to be a steady move in the later overs. However the 14th over shows an unexpected dip. Why, I cannot tell.

d. There is a major move in wickets lost between 5th and 6th overs, a clear case of batsmen chancing their arms. The significant increase in the 20th over is again understandable.

4. T20-Intls: Comparison of 20-over figures between First and Second inns

Ovr First Innings    Second Innings    First Inns  Second Inns
#     Runs               Runs            Wkts         Wkts

1 (87.0 525) 6.03 5.51 (87.0 479) 20 0.23 20 0.23 2 (87.0 545) 6.26 7.52 (87.0 654) 26 0.30 16 0.18 3 (87.0 688) 7.91 7.41 (87.0 645) 24 0.28 33 0.38 4 (87.0 675) 7.76 7.40 (87.0 644) 29 0.33 25 0.29 5 (87.0 685) 7.87 8.98 (87.0 781) 19 0.22 18 0.21 6 (87.0 673) 7.74 8.10 (86.5 703) 31 0.36 36 0.41 7 (87.0 542) 6.23 6.92 (86.0 595) 26 0.30 21 0.24 8 (87.0 608) 6.99 6.48 (85.4 555) 28 0.32 21 0.25 9 (87.0 568) 6.53 5.99 (85.0 509) 24 0.28 25 0.29 10 (86.0 606) 7.05 6.64 (83.0 551) 29 0.34 16 0.19 11 (86.0 608) 7.07 5.96 (80.5 482) 32 0.37 28 0.35 12 (85.0 644) 7.58 6.94 (78.5 547) 23 0.27 25 0.32 13 (85.0 647) 7.61 7.53 (78.0 587) 24 0.28 28 0.36 14 (84.0 578) 6.88 6.69 (77.5 521) 36 0.43 27 0.35 15 (83.0 597) 7.19 7.86 (74.2 584) 36 0.43 27 0.36 16 (83.0 729) 8.78 7.19 (72.5 524) 31 0.37 27 0.37 17 (82.5 673) 8.12 8.75 (69.2 607) 45 0.54 26 0.38 18 (79.5 625) 7.83 7.74 (67.1 520) 42 0.53 28 0.42 19 (78.0 736) 9.44 8.30 (54.0 448) 53 0.68 23 0.43 20 (73.2 706) 9.63 9.57 (36.1 346) 71 0.97 34 0.94

Total 7.50 7.29 0.38 0.33

The first innings average for both runs per over and wickets per over are slightly higher for obvious reasons, the absence of a specific target. In the second innings the target is known and only the required runs are scored and unnecessary risks not taken.

a. The first real difference comes in the 2nd over. For some strange reason the chasing teams have averaged 25% more than the first batting teams. Why, I cannot put my fingers on one reason.

b. Similar in the 5th over where contrary to what I would have expected, the chasing teams have outscored the first batting teams. Possibly the uncertainty of the first innings caused this. For the first 6 overs, the chasing team has an additional 2 runs (45+ against 43+). No great difference.

c. The rest of the stats show usual fluctuations other than the 19th over where the first batting team is over a run ahead of the chasing team. Yuvraj Singh's 36-run over has contributed 0.3 of this run.

d. There is no great difference in average wickets other than the over 3 (chasing team 30% more), over 10 (first batting team nearly double of chasing team) and over 19 (first batting team 35% more). The later is explainable what with the batsmen throwing their bats around in the first innings and slowing down nearing the target in the second. In addition, it is also possible that the matches are won or lost by the 19th over.

5. T20-Intls: Comparison of 20-over figures between T20s and IPL

Ov T20-Interntionals IPL-2009 matches    T20-Intls  IPL-2009
#     Runs               Runs              Wkts       Wkts

1 (174.0 1004) 5.77 5.55 (114.0 633) 40 0.23 38 0.33 2 (174.0 1199) 6.89 6.73 (114.0 767) 42 0.24 33 0.29 3 (174.0 1333) 7.66 7.20 (114.0 821) 57 0.33 26 0.23 4 (174.0 1319) 7.58 7.73 (114.0 881) 54 0.31 26 0.23 5 (174.0 1466) 8.43 8.10 (113.5 922) 37 0.21 31 0.27 6 (173.5 1376) 7.92 7.98 (113.0 902) 67 0.39 33 0.29 7 (173.0 1137) 6.57 5.66 (113.0 640) 47 0.27 30 0.27 8 (172.4 1163) 6.74 6.65 (113.0 752) 49 0.28 17 0.15 9 (172.0 1077) 6.26 6.88 (113.0 778) 49 0.28 27 0.24 10 (169.0 1157) 6.85 6.10 (112.2 685) 45 0.27 33 0.29 11 (166.5 1090) 6.53 6.51 (112.0 729) 60 0.36 30 0.27 12 (163.5 1191) 7.27 7.31 (112.0 819) 48 0.29 26 0.23 13 (163.0 1234) 7.57 7.23 (111.0 802) 52 0.32 27 0.24 14 (161.5 1099) 6.79 7.46 (110.1 822) 63 0.39 30 0.27 15 (157.2 1181) 7.51 7.94 (109.4 871) 63 0.40 36 0.33 16 (155.5 1253) 8.04 8.17 (105.5 865) 58 0.37 45 0.43 17 (152.1 1280) 8.41 9.15 (104.2 955) 71 0.47 43 0.41 18 (147.0 1145) 7.79 9.60 (102.2 982) 70 0.48 47 0.46 19 (132.0 1184) 8.97 8.98 ( 96.2 865) 76 0.58 44 0.46 20 (109.3 1052) 9.61 10.01 ( 82.5 829) 105 0.96 77 0.93

Total 7.39 7.49 0.36 0.32

It must be remembered that the T20s have had matches played across the world, between many different levels of teams and do not have the 10th over long commercial break.

a. The IPL matches have a slightly higher run-rate as well as slightly lower wickets per over also. Possibly the better quality of players?

b. Not so surprisingly the T20 and IPL have almost similar values barring one over, the 18th. IPL rate is ahead by 20%. Over 10, which had a greater significance for IPL than T20s, there is no variance at all.

c. The two opening overs have shown a much higher quantum of wickets being captured. Understandable since IPL was played in South Africa while the T20s have been played in batsmen-friendly pitches across the world. There seems to be a greater number of wickets in the 6th over in T20s than IPL indicating that in the T20s teams have opted for steadier starts but have tried to speed up just before the fielding restrictions end.

6. T20-Intls: 10 over scores - runs scored

SNo. I MtId Year Team 10Overs Final score   vs  %adv Rns Rslt

1. 1 0013 2007 Aus 117/2 to 221/ 5 (20.0) Eng 1.89 104 Won 2. 1 0020 2007 Win 109/0 to 205/ 6 (20.0) Saf 1.88 96 Lost 3. 2 0014 2007 Saf 107/0 to 132/ 0 (11.3) Pak 1.23 25 Won 4. 2 0020 2007 Saf 106/2 to 208/ 2 (17.4) Win 1.96 102 Won 5. 1 0079 2008 Nzl 106/0 to 191/ 9 (20.0) Win 1.80 85 Won 6. 2 0057 2008 Win 102/3 to 102/ 3 ( 9.1) Aus 1.00 0 Won 7. 1 0027 2007 Slk 101/2 to 260/ 6 (20.0) Ken 2.57 159 Won 8. 1 0080 2009 Aus 101/2 to 182/ 9 (20.0) Saf 1.80 81 Won 9. 1 0011 2006 Nzl 101/2 to 162/ 8 (20.0) Slk 1.60 61 Lost 10. 2 0047 2007 Ind 101/1 to 167/ 3 (18.1) Aus 1.65 66 Won 11. 2 0024 2007 Bng 100/2 to 165/ 4 (18.0) Win 1.65 65 Won ... ... ... 168. 1 0021 2007 Ken 38/5 to 73/10 (16.5) Nzl 1.92 35 Lost 169. 2 0064 2008 Ire 34/2 to 72/ 6 (19.1) Ken 2.12 38 Won 170. 1 0067 2008 Ber 33/5 to 70/10 (20.0) Can 2.12 37 Lost 171. 1 0050 2007 Saf 28/7 to 58/ 8 (13.0) Win 2.07 30 Lost 172. 2 0075 2008 Can 27/4 to 75/10 (19.2) Zim 2.78 48 Lost

Even though the 10-over mark is not significant in T20 International matches, there being no Commercial(-cum-strategic) break, I have determined the 10-over scores to do a similar analysis as IPL. After all 10 overs represents the mid point and is an ideal point for taking stock.

a. There have been quite a few instances of teams having reached 100 runs during the first 10 overs, 11 to be precise. This has been distributed over a number of teams, Pakistan and England excepted.

b. Not all teams have taken advantage of this great start. Australia and Sri Lanka have capitalized on the start very well. Couple of teams who crossed 100 in 10 overs have also lost.

c. A few teams have scored fewer than 40 runs in the first 10 overs and have lost. The only exception is the Ireland which, however, was chasing only a paltry total of 67 by Kenya.

7. T20-Intls: 10 over scores - % of runs advanced in second 10 overs

SNo. I MtId Year Team 10Overs Final score   vs  %adv Rns Rslt

1. 1 0045 2007 Ind 60/2 to 188/ 5 (20.0) Aus 3.13 128 Won 2. 2 0081 2009 Aus 56/2 to 161/ 4 (18.5) Saf 2.88 105 Won 3. 2 0075 2008 Can 27/4 to 75/10 (19.2) Zim 2.78 48 Lost 4. 1 0036 2007 Nzl 60/4 to 164/ 9 (20.0) Eng 2.73 104 Won 5. 1 0035 2007 Pak 69/3 to 189/ 6 (20.0) Slk 2.74 120 Won 6. 1 0051 2008 Win 48/3 to 131/ 7 (20.0) Saf 2.73 83 Lost 7. 1 0023 2007 Aus 51/4 to 138/ 9 (20.0) Zim 2.71 87 Lost 8. 2 0049 2007 Nzl 49/6 to 132/10 (18.3) Aus 2.69 83 Lost 9. 1 0043 2007 Ind 57/3 to 153/ 5 (20.0) Saf 2.68 96 Won 10. 2 0029 2007 Pak 53/4 to 141/ 7 (20.0) Ind 2.66 88 Lost 11. 1 0081 2009 Saf 59/3 to 157/ 5 (20.0) Aus 2.66 98 Lost 12. 1 0027 2007 Slk 101/2 to 260/ 6 (20.0) Ken 2.57 159 Won 13. 1 0038 2007 Slk 57/3 to 147/ 5 (20.0) Bng 2.58 90 Won 14. 1 0022 2007 Pak 67/3 to 171/ 9 (20.0) Sco 2.55 104 Won 15. 1 0049 2007 Aus 73/3 to 186/ 6 (20.0) Nzl 2.55 113 Won 16. 2 0059 2008 Ire 47/2 to 118/ 6 (19.5) Sco 2.51 71 Won 17. 2 0039 2007 Saf 63/3 to 158/ 4 (19.1) Nzl 2.51 95 Won 18. 1 0032 2007 Nzl 77/2 to 190/10 (20.0) Ind 2.47 113 Won 19. 2 0071 2008 Zim 55/4 to 135/ 9 (20.0) Can 2.45 80 Lost 20. 1 0008 2006 Eng 59/4 to 144/ 7 (20.0) Pak 2.44 85 Lost

a. India tripled their score at the 10-over mark, and won. They also added 128 runs against the quality Australian attack. Sri Lanka have scored the maximum number of runs during the second 10 overs, battering the hapless Kenyans to the tune of 159 runs (yes, a rate of 15.9 rpo).

8. T20-Intls: T20 Batting Index (Min 5 batting innings)

No Batsman          Ctry  Inns  Runs  R/Inns   StRt  BatIdx

1 Gayle C.H Win 7 261 37.29 161.1 60.07 2 Warner D.A Aus 5 177 35.40 155.3 54.96 3 Symonds A Aus 11 337 30.64 169.3 51.88 4 Masakadza H Zim 7 258 36.86 135.8 50.05 5 Hayden M.L Aus 9 308 34.22 143.9 49.25 6 Yuvraj Singh Ind 9 262 29.11 164.8 47.97 7 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 11 341 31.00 154.3 47.83 8 McMillan C.D Nzl 7 187 26.71 159.8 42.70 9 Smith D.S Win 5 166 33.20 123.9 41.13 10 Samuels M.N Win 6 131 21.83 177.0 38.65 11 Smith G.C Saf 12 364 30.33 127.3 38.61 12 Oram J.D.P Nzl 12 293 24.42 156.7 38.26 13 Gambhir G Ind 11 328 29.82 126.6 37.76 14 Duminy J.P Saf 10 279 27.90 133.5 37.24 15 Misbah-ul-Haq Pak 14 422 30.14 122.7 36.98 16 Kemp J.M Saf 7 203 29.00 126.9 36.79 17 Hussey D.J Aus 7 181 25.86 141.4 36.56 18 Pietersen K.P Eng 15 375 25.00 144.2 36.06 19 Ponting R.T Aus 14 376 26.86 131.5 35.31 20 McCullum B.B Nzl 21 582 27.71 125.4 34.76

This is a measure which encompasses in a single number the two significant characteristics of T20 batting, (viz), the runs scored and the strike rate. In order to take away the effects of not outs, in any case Batting average in T20 is a non-starter, only Runs per Innings is used. A minimum of 5 batting innings are used to select batsmen.

The measure is a product of the Runs/Innings figure by Strike Rate. This is an excellent measure to determine the batsman's contribution. Longevity does not come into the picture at all.

Gayle, with a Runs/Inns figure of 37.29 and strike rate of 1.611 has an excellent Bat index value of 60.07 and leads by a good margin against the new sensation from Australia, David warner, who has figures of 35.4 and 1.553 leading to 54.96. Third is the incomparable Andrew Symonds, with figures of 34.10 and 1.543, getting a Bat index of 52.62.

The unheralded Masakadza, playing for an unfancied team is the surprising presence at no.4, with an excellent Bat index value of over 50. Yuvraj Singh is the leading Indian and Misbah-ul-Haq, the leading Pakistani batsmen.

9. T20-Intls: % of boundaries in an innings (innings minimum - 50 runs)

No MtId Year Player Name          For  Runs Balls S/R  4-6s  %    vs

1.0040 2007 Yuvraj Singh Ind 58 16 362.5 54 93.1% Eng 2.0011 2006 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 51 23 221.7 46 90.2% Nzl 3.0049 2007 Oram J.D.P Nzl 66 31 212.9 56 84.8% Aus 4.0014 2007 Smith G.C Saf 71 40 177.5 60 84.5% Pak 5.0079 2008 McCullum B.B Nzl 59 34 173.5 48 81.4% Win 6.0043 2007 Sharma R.G Ind 50 40 125.0 40 80.0% Saf 7.0027 2007 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 88 44 200.0 68 77.3% Ken 8.0018 2007 Nazimuddin Bng 81 50 162.0 62 76.5% Pak 9.0074 2008 Rizwan Cheema Can 68 43 158.1 52 76.5% Slk 10.0020 2007 Gibbs H.H Saf 90 55 163.6 68 75.6% Win ... 14.0020 2007 Gayle C.H Win 117 57 205.3 88 75.2% Saf

Yuvraj Singh is on top, because of his 6-sixes over off Broad. An astounding 93% of his runs were scored in 4s and 6s. Jayasuriya's 90% follows next and then comes Oram's 85%.

The maximum runs in boundaries in an innings is by Gayle who scored 88 runs off his score of 117 in boundaries. Unfortunately West Indies lost the match.

10. T20-Intls: Overs in which 20 or more runs were conceded

No MtId Year I Bowler Name       For Vs  O        % of Tot Max

1.0040 2007 1 Broad S.C.J Eng Ind 19 36 runs 16.5% 20 2.0001 2005 1 Tuffey D.R Nzl Aus 19 30 runs 14.0% 20 3.0027 2007 1 Onyango L.N Ken Slk 19 29 runs 11.2% 20 4.0053 2008 1 Patel J.S Nzl Eng 16 26 runs 14.1% 20 5.0027 2007 1 Tikolo S.O Ken Slk 13 25 runs 9.6% 20 6.0032 2007 1 Yuvraj Singh Ind Nzl 16 25 runs 13.2% 20 7.0057 2008 2 Johnson M.G Aus Win 2 25 runs 24.5% 9 8.0049 2007 2 Symonds A Aus Nzl 18 24 runs 18.2% 19 9.0039 2007 1 Morkel J.A Saf Nzl 15 24 runs 15.7% 20 10.0024 2007 1 Mohammad Ashraful Bng Win 19 24 runs 14.6% 20 11.0079 2008 1 Edwards F.H Win Nzl 8 24 runs 12.6% 20 12.0006 2006 1 Hogg G.B Aus Saf 16 23 runs 11.4% 20 13.0022 2007 1 Haq R.M Sco Pak 13 23 runs 13.5% 20 14.0088 2009 1 Bracken N.W Aus Saf 16 23 runs 14.7% 20 15.0025 2007 1 Dabengwa K.M Zim Eng 13 22 runs 11.7% 20 16.0054 2008 1 Hitchcock P.A Nzl Eng 5 22 runs 11.4% 20 17.0008 2006 2 Mahmood S.I Eng Pak 5 22 runs 14.9% 17 18.0047 2007 1 Sreesanth S Ind Aus 18 22 runs 13.3% 20 19.0035 2007 2 Mohammad Asif Pak Slk 7 22 runs 14.1% 20 & 12 others who have conceded 21 runs in an over, & 18 others who have conceded 20 runs in an over.

a. There are 30 instances in the first innings and only 19 in the second innings. Clearly a case of the uncertainty prevailing in the first innings when the target is unclear while in the second innings the target is clear and there is no need to go for risky run-scoring efforts.

b. New Zealand batsmen have done this 9 times, followed by South Africa 7 times and Australia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India 6 times each.

c. Australia and New Zealand bowlers have conceded 20 or more runs 8 times while England bowlers 6 times.

d. The Indian batting and England bowling stints converged in the 36-run over essayed by Yuvraj Singh against Broad during the T20 World Cup 2007. The irony is that Yuvraj himself was hit for 25 runs by Oram/McMillan.

e. Hopes, Ashraful, Shahadat Hossain and Sreesanth have conceded 20 or more runs twice in T20 matches.

f. Johnson's 25 run constituted 24.5% of the opposing team total. However this was while a low Australian total was being chased by West Indies, in less than 10 overs. In a complete 19-20 over match, the highest % of runs conceded was in the Symonds over to New Zealand (24 out of 132, but Australia won) and the amazing 36 over bowled by Broad (36 out of 218).

11. T20-Intls: Analysis of maidens bowled

No Bowler             Ctry  Mat  Overs  Mdns  % Mdns   M/M

1 Price R.W Zim 4 16.0 3 18.75 0.75 2 Nel J.D Sco 6 19.0 3 15.79 0.50 3 Gillespie M.R Nzl 11 35.0 3 8.57 0.27 4 Fernando C.R.D Slk 13 46.0 3 6.52 0.23 5 Shahid Afridi Pak 16 61.3 3 4.88 0.19 6 Syed Rasel Bng 8 29.0 2 6.90 0.25 7 Sreesanth S Ind 9 34.0 2 5.88 0.22 8 Bracken N.W Aus 17 56.5 2 3.52 0.12 & 29 others who have bowled a single maiden in their career.

a. There are 8 instances of bowlers exceeding or reaching 3 maidens. Three bowlers have bowled 2 maidens each.

b. Ray Price of Zimbabwe has the best record of maiden frequency with 18.75%, followed by J.D.Nel of Scotland (15.8%) and Gillespie of New Zealand with 8.5%. c. The highest number of runs conceded in the 20th over is 21 while the highest number of runs conceded in the first over is 19.

c. In T20s a total of 50 maidens were bowled out of 3238 overs making the frequency at one every 65 matches. Contrast this with the IPL figures of 21 maidens out of 2179 overs, working out to a much lower frequency of a maiden every 104 matches. Possibly due to the higher quality of batsmen present.

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 Arvind on (June 22, 2009, 16:34 GMT)

Hi Ananth I did some analysis on the T20 WC bowling data. Its essentially similar to what you did with the IPL2009 bowling. There are interesting differences between the IPLP and T20 WC. I dont mean to say that it means something but its a statistical curiosity. Anyways I would be delighted to get you feedback on my recent post at my blog

http://rightarmoverfast.blogspot.com/

Thanks Arvind [[ Arvind Great reading. Can you please post this comment to my recent WC article so that I can publish it there. Thanks Ananth: ]]

Posted by dguru on (June 18, 2009, 18:20 GMT)

Would it be possible to do an analysis of fielding in the World twenty20/20. I am amazed by South Africa fielding and naively feel it is 20-30 runs better than any team, not just in catching, but speed in covering ground and release in throwing. Similarly Eng wicket keeper was just delightful to watch, but Broad's fielding off his bowling was equally aweful.

Posted by keyur on (June 9, 2009, 6:12 GMT)

hi ananth, i believe that your reasoning for higher run rate in ipl as better quality of players seems unjustified.

the more logical reason is that the batting in ipl was stronger than the bowling across all teams. let me explain: given that t20 is more in favour of batsman, it is easier for a indian domestic batsman to match an international batsman but the domestic bowlers haven't been as good as the international bowlers.

to confirm this just check the highest wicket takers of ipl. the wicket takers have been mostly internationals or current or ex india players.

also, most of the new domestic players to emerge from ipl are batsman( s dhawan, y pathan, w saha, a nayar, m pandey...) while bowlers have been few. so the runrate is higher.

further you state that you favor bowlers, but you have not given any table for the best t20 bowlers.A product of strike rate and economy rate as the index may be used.

also, where is A. Morkel on the list of batsman?

Posted by mathelitist on (June 6, 2009, 15:13 GMT)

Ananth, I will tend to agree with Gizza: the statement "perhaps better quality of IPL players" is not justified.

I actually think IPL has better players on an average---batsmen and bowlers, in fact. For the same reason you mention. I even worry that the World Cup may not be a good enough encore to IPL2.

But the statistic you quote doesn't imply the conclusion you come up with. You are doing a good job, so obviously, we will try to hold you to the "nitpick" standard (you are scrutinized closer so that one day, we can quote you without worry).

Posted by Nikhil Das on (June 5, 2009, 7:05 GMT)

Highly impressive.Brilliant work.Being a cricket commentator, I cannot ask for a more comprehensive document.Thanks.Please keep it up.

Posted by sanjiv on (June 5, 2009, 4:25 GMT)

Ananthji:

There's some discrepancy in the Table for Symonds and Hayden,and it does not match the figures in the text, so kindly correct it.

8. T20-Intls: T20 Batting Index (Min 5 batting innings)

No Batsman Ctry Inns Runs R/Inns StRt BatIdx

1 Gayle C.H Win 7 261 37.29 161.1 60.07 2 Warner D.A Aus 5 177 35.40 155.3 54.96 3 Symonds A Aus 11 337 30.64 169.3 81.53 4 Masakadza H Zim 7 258 36.86 135.8 50.05 5 Hayden M.L Aus 9 308 34.22 143.9 73.88 6 Yuvraj Singh Ind 9 262 29.11 164.8 53.97

[[ Sanjiv You are correct. In fact there is a mistake in the last column for all the 20 batsmen. A slight mistake in a cut-and-paste operation. Have since corrected. However the sequence was correct. Thanks Ananth: ]]

Posted by Kunal on (June 4, 2009, 19:34 GMT)

Aren't bowlers already allowed to bowl 20% of the overs? Did you mean to say more than? [[ Kunal Apologize for the oversight. What I really meant was 25% or even 30% of the overs. Ananth: ]]

Posted by Arvind on (June 4, 2009, 15:50 GMT)

Hi Ananth Thanks for this very interesting analysis. Likre previous time, I did inning by inning correlation analysis. And my analysis shows that the correlation structure is different in the two innings. But still Average Runs in an over are strongly and positively correlated with the Average wickets in an over. You may want to have a look on the figures.

http://rightarmoverfast.blogspot.com/

[[ Arvind The link does not connect. Can you post a summary in a table form or send me a document. However I agree that there must be strong correlation between Runs/over and Wkts/over which is apparent even in a cursory perusal. Ananth: ]]

Posted by zeke on (June 4, 2009, 13:02 GMT)

in 11 c you attribute the higher frequency of maidens in T20is to higher quality batsmen in the IPL wouldn't the opposite be true due to the limit on overseas players in the playing 11 in the IPL therefore forcing teams to use indian domestic players rather than international players of higher quality? [[ Zeke I am sure you will agree that the 3 Indian domestic players are certainly equal in skill levels to the low-3 of Ireland/Scotland/Netherlands. But if you look at the other 8, the IPL teams are much stronger. Maybe when I said IPL teams were stronger, I should say, as against the lower half of the T20-WC line-up. Ananth: ]]

Posted by Aditya on (June 4, 2009, 10:05 GMT)

In No 11 point (c) the maiden frequency should be written as one per every "X" no of overs rather than matches.

Awesome Analysis Mr.Ananth..nothing more one could ask for wrt T20I's :)

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