Twenty20 June 22, 2009

ICC World Twenty20 - an analyst's view

My review of the World Twenty looks at the areas not covered by Cricinfo's stats pages and by S Rajesh's review
29

The T20 World Cup has been covered extensively in the Cricinfo Records section and by Rajesh's review. This article looks at the areas not covered by these two excellent reviews. If there is an overlap, worse things have happened.

The first three tables relate to the best Batting and Bowling performances during the World Cup. These are based on the Ratings calculations. As I have already explained, these Ratings calculations are totally different to the Test/ODI Ratings. There I have adopted the bottom-up approach insofar as I determine base points based on runs scored or wickets captured and then apply various multiplicative indices on these base points.

In T20s, I have adopted a top-down approach. The Par Score is determined for each innings, be it the target-setting one or the chasing one. Then the team performance is worked out, to what extent the target score has been exceeded or fallen short, the extent of resources (runs and balls) used and the result. Afterwards, the batting and bowling function contributions are worked out and these allotted points further allotted amongst the batsmen and bowlers of each team. This is the basis for the Maruti-Cricinfo Ratings and more details are available there.

The advantage is that all Rating points are linked to the contribution to the team cause and scoring rates and bowling accuracy are incorporated to their high level of deservedness.

Top 20 Players during the T20 World Cup 2009

No Player            Ctry M RtgPts  Batting   Bowling

1 Shahid Afridi Pak 7 841.36 302.43 + 538.93 2 Bravo D.J Win 6 619.62 260.67 + 358.96 3 Umar Gul Pak 7 585.95 33.92 + 552.02 4 Dilshan T.M Slk 7 540.99 536.56 + 4.43 5 Kallis J.H Saf 5 502.32 334.11 + 168.21 6 Mendis B.A.W Slk 7 500.90 12.10 + 488.80 7 Saeed Ajmal Pak 7 457.70 0.00 + 457.70 8 van der Merwe R.E Saf 6 455.27 7.43 + 447.85 9 Malinga S.L Slk 7 454.47 11.51 + 442.96 10 Gayle C.H Win 5 448.81 308.65 + 140.16 11 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 7 436.80 305.69 + 131.11 12 Simmons L.M.P Win 5 429.77 267.61 + 162.16 13 Muralitharan M Slk 7 418.76 6.02 + 412.74 14 Mathews A.D Slk 7 364.71 151.10 + 213.60 15 Parnell W.D Saf 6 364.09 0.00 + 364.09 16 Steyn D.W Saf 6 360.85 0.00 + 360.85 17 Abdul Razzaq Pak 4 336.75 46.26 + 290.50 18 Mohammad Aamer Pak 7 335.32 0.00 + 335.32 19 McCallan W.K Ire 5 331.66 23.37 + 308.28 20 Broad S.C.J Eng 5 312.40 71.48 + 240.92

These are based on the individual batting and bowling performances during the World Cup.

There is no doubt that Shahid Afridi was the most influential player, by a few miles, during the World Cup. He is ahead of Dwayne Bravo by over 200 points. Umar Gul is third and Dilshan is fourth, followed by kallis. The award to Dilshan was probably a sympathy vote. It cannot be justified otherwise.

This table is a subsequent addition based on a reader comment and should have rightfully been there at the beginning itself.

1. Top 20 Bowling performances during the T20 World Cup 2009

No MtId Year Player Name          For  Vs  <-Analysis-> RtgPts

1.0107 2009 Umar Gul Pak Nzl 3.0-0- 6-5 226.1 Won 2.0099 2009 van der Merwe R.E Saf Nzl 4.0-0-14-2 133.8 Won 3.0116 2009 Abdul Razzaq Pak Slk 3.0-0-20-3 133.6 Won 4.0114 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Saf 4.0-0-16-2 130.0 Won 5.0103 2009 Parnell W.D Saf Eng 3.5-0-14-3 119.6 Won 6.0104 2009 Malinga S.L Slk Pak 4.0-0-17-3 118.9 Won 7.0107 2009 Abdul Razzaq Pak Nzl 3.3-1-17-2 118.8 Won 8.0112 2009 Mendis B.A.W Slk Nzl 3.0-0- 9-3 117.2 Won 9.0113 2009 Botha J Saf Ind 4.0-0-16-3 112.0 Won 10.0115 2009 Mendis B.A.W Slk Win 4.0-0- 9-2 109.3 Won 11.0098 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Hol 4.0-0-11-4 108.5 Won 12.0101 2009 Khan Z Ind Ire 3.0-0-19-4 106.7 Won 13.0110 2009 Saeed Ajmal Pak Ire 4.0-0-19-4 106.2 Won 14.0105 2009 Bravo D.J Win Ind 4.0-0-38-4 105.0 Won 15.0102 2009 McCullum N.L Nzl Ire 3.0-0-15-3 104.4 Won 16.0096 2009 Johnston D.T Ire Bng 4.0-0-20-3 104.0 Won 17.0111 2009 Bravo D.J Win Eng 4.0-0-30-2 103.8 Won 18.0106 2009 Parnell W.D Saf Win 4.0-0-13-4 102.2 Won 19.0099 2009 Butler I.G Nzl Saf 4.0-0-13-2 102.0 20.0105 2009 Edwards F.H Win Ind 4.0-0-24-3 100.8 Won

Umar Gul's amazing 5 for 6 (possibly equivalent to Vaas' 8 for 19 in ODIs) leads by such a huge margin that it is very likely that this would remain the best T20 bowling performance for years to come. The quality of wickets and the bowling accuracy are unbelievable.

The MOM award to van dear Merwe's economical spell against New Zealand surprised me until I found out that this is rated as the second best bowling performance. The bowling economy was aided by the two key wickets, that too in a low-scoring game.

Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa, who were the best bowling teams in the tournament, monopolize the top-10 positions. Zaheer Khan, McCullum, Bravo and Broad lead for their respective countries.

2. Top 20 batting performances during the T20 World Cup 2009

No MtId Year Player Name          For  Vs  Runs Balls RtgPts

1.0092 2009 Gayle C.H Win Aus 88 50 182.8 Won 2.0115 2009 Dilshan T.M Slk Win 96 57 151.7 Won 3.0100 2009 Jayasuriya S.T Slk Win 81 47 151.4 Won 4.0106 2009 Simmons L.M.P Win Saf 77 50 137.0 5.0100 2009 Dilshan T.M Slk Win 74 47 132.0 Won 6.0105 2009 Bravo D.J Win Ind 66 36 128.8 Won 7.0116 2009 Sangakkara K.C Slk Pak 64 52 115.6 8.0092 2009 Fletcher A.D.S Win Aus 53 32 111.8 Won 9.0091 2009 Ryder J.D Nzl Sco 31 12 111.8 Won 10.0108 2009 Jayawardene D.P.M.D Slk Ire 78 53 111.5 Won 11.0094 2009 de Villiers A.B Saf Sco 79 34 109.5 Won 12.0102 2009 Redmond A.J Nzl Ire 63 30 106.4 Won 13.0116 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Slk 54 40 105.0 Won 14.0105 2009 Yuvraj Singh Ind Win 67 43 100.8 15.0114 2009 Kallis J.H Saf Pak 64 54 97.2 16.0097 2009 Dilshan T.M Slk Aus 53 32 96.4 Won 17.0109 2009 Pietersen K.P Eng Ind 46 27 95.8 Won 18.0106 2009 Gibbs H.H Saf Win 55 35 92.8 Won 19.0114 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Saf 51 34 91.2 Won 20.0095 2009 Pietersen K.P Eng Pak 58 38 90.2 Won

Readers might wonder why Gayle's innings is rated higher than Dilshan's semi-final classic. The reason is that it was a high-pressure chasing innings, the Australian bowling attack was, on paper, much stronger and the result was a much closer one. If Gayle had failed, West Indies would have lost. If Dilshan had scored 30 runs fewer, Sri Lanka might very well have won.

The Top-10 table has 9 entries from the Sri Lankan and West Indian batsmen, with Dilshan accounting for two. The other entry is the surprising cameo of Ryder. Ryder's inclusion is a vindication of the Ratings methodology in that a match-winning cameo's importance in a shortened match with a stiff run-chase has been recognised.

de Villiers' explosive 79, Yuvraj's innings against West Indies, Afridi's top-class 50 against Sri Lanka and Pietersen's cameo against India lead for their respective countries.

3. 10-over analysis: by second half progress

No.I MtId Team     Score                Vs Runs

1.1 0094 Saf 88/2 to 211/ 5 (20.0) vs Sco 123 Won 2.1 0092 Aus 63/3 to 169/ 7 (20.0) vs Win 106 Lost 3.1 0102 Nzl 94/2 to 198/ 5 (20.0) vs Ire 104 Won 4.1 0093 Ind 76/1 to 180/ 5 (20.0) vs Bng 104 Won 5.1 0105 Ind 54/3 to 153/ 7 (20.0) vs Win 99 Lost 6.1 0106 Saf 86/1 to 183/ 7 (20.0) vs Win 97 Won 7.2 0100 Win 81/4 to 177/ 5 (20.0) vs Slk 96 Lost 8.1 0095 Eng 90/2 to 185/ 5 (20.0) vs Pak 95 Won 9.2 0105 Win 61/2 to 156/ 3 (18.4) vs Ind 95 Won 10.1 0098 Pak 81/2 to 175/ 5 (20.0) vs Hol 94 Won ... ... ... 47.2 0098 Hol 53/4 to 93/10 (17.3) vs Pak 40 Lost 48.2 0101 Ind 75/0 to 113/ 2 (15.3) vs Ire 38 Won 49.2 0112 Nzl 77/4 to 110/10 (17.0) vs Slk 33 Lost 50.2 0094 Sco 50/6 to 81/10 (15.4) vs Saf 31 Lost 51.2 0107 Pak 73/4 to 100/ 4 (13.1) vs Nzl 27 Won

South Africa leads the pack with an immense advance of 123 runs, albeit against Scotland. Australia advanced by over 100 runs against West Indies, but lost. New Zealand and India advanced by over 100 runs against weak teams. Note West Indies' progress against Sri Lanka for the loss of only one wicket.

4. 10-over analysis: by 10-over score

No.I MtId Team 10-over score

1.2 0092 Win 121/0 vs Aus Won 2.1 0100 Slk 105/0 vs Win Won 3.1 0102 Nzl 94/2 vs Ire Won 4.2 0090 Hol 91/3 vs Eng Won 5.1 0095 Eng 90/2 vs Pak Won 6.1 0090 Eng 89/0 vs Hol Lost 7.1 0094 Saf 88/2 vs Sco Won 8.2 0097 Slk 86/2 vs Aus Won 9.1 0106 Saf 86/1 vs Win Won 10.1 0104 Slk 86/1 vs Pak Won ... ... ... 47.2 0098 Hol 53/4 vs Pak Lost 48.2 0094 Sco 50/6 vs Saf Lost 49.2 0103 Saf 50/1 vs Eng Won 50.1 0101 Ire 48/5 vs Ind Lost 51.1 0103 Eng 47/3 vs Saf Lost

Only two teams crossed 100 runs in 10 overs, surprisingly both against top teams, and both without losing a wicket. For me the most amazing entry here is England's 89 for no loss against Holland, looking likely to score 200, adding only 73 in the next 10 overs and losing.

5. Table of 20-run overs

No MtId I For Bowler Name      Vs   O Runs % Scr Max

1.0092 2 Aus Lee B Win 5 27 15.7% 15 2.0091 2 Sco Stander J.H Nzl 6 22 24.4% 6 3.0094 1 Sco Watson R.R Saf 17 22 10.4% 20 4.0094 1 Sco Stander J.H Saf 5 21 10.0% 20 5.0095 1 Pak Yasir Arafat Eng 5 21 11.4% 20 6.0097 1 Slk Muralitharan M Aus 16 21 13.2% 20 7.0096 1 Ire Cusack A.R Bng 20 20 14.6% 20 8.0091 2 Sco Wright C.M Nzl 3 20 22.2% 6 9.0100 1 Win Edwards F.H Slk 10 20 10.4% 20 10.0110 1 Ire Johnston D.T Pak 4 20 12.6% 20 11.0112 2 Slk Jayasuriya S.T Nzl 2 20 18.2% 17

Brett Lee's disastrous over against West Indies, signalling the slide of Australia, was the most expensive of the World Cup. Stander is the only bowler to have delivered two 20-plus overs. Muralitharan is the surprise bowler in this list.

6. Great finishes: by runs scored during last 5 overs

No  I MtNo Team            Max  Runs

1. 1 0094 Saf 128 to 211 (20.0) 83 vs Sco Won 2. 1 0093 Ind 113 to 180 (20.0) 67 vs Bng Won 3. 1 0097 Aus 94 to 159 (20.0) 65 vs Slk Lost 4. 1 0098 Pak 115 to 175 (20.0) 60 vs Hol Won 5. 1 0115 Slk 98 to 158 (20.0) 60 vs Win Won 6. 1 0116 Slk 79 to 138 (20.0) 59 vs Pak Lost 7. 1 0102 Nzl 140 to 198 (20.0) 58 vs Ire Won 8. 1 0092 Aus 111 to 169 (20.0) 58 vs Win Lost 9. 1 0105 Ind 97 to 153 (20.0) 56 vs Win Lost 10. 2 0109 Ind 94 to 150 (20.0) 56 vs Eng Lost

The top two last 5-over blitzes are by the top teams against weak teams. The real move came in the Australia match against Sri Lanka, although they lost the match. Sri Lanka had a similar spurt against West Indies, and won. India had two great finishes but lost both matches. Note also that West Indies has conceded 55-plus runs three times during the last 5 overs. The first 9 finishes are in the first innings.

Note entries 5 and 6. Sri Lanka had two great finishes. The first took them to the final but the second was not enough to win the final.

7. The slow innings (Minimum 20 balls)

No MtId Player Name        For  Runs Balls  S/R   Vs

1.0105 Dhoni M.S Ind 11 23 47.8 Win 2.0115 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 24 37 64.9 Win Won 3.0096 Raqibul Hasan Bng 13 20 65.0 Ire 4.0099 Taylor R.L Nzl 22 31 71.0 Saf 5.0109 Jadeja R.A Ind 25 35 71.4 Eng 6.0098 Kervezee A.N Hol 21 29 72.4 Pak 7.0104 2009 Misbah-ul-Haq Pak 21 28 75.0 Slk 8.0094 2009 Haq R.M Sco 15 20 75.0 Saf 9.0107 2009 Styris S.B Nzl 22 29 75.9 Pak 10.0096 2009 Tamim Iqbal Bng 22 28 78.6 Ire

Dhoni's lacklustre effort against West Indies, leading this pack of forgettable innings, was one of the reasons for that loss and is indicative of his loss of form and confidence. Despite the WC 2007 win it is obvious that India in general and Dhoni in particular have not mastered the T20 game. Dhoni himself plays the T20 matches often like an ODI matches. Incidentally Dhoni's is the only innings with a 1970s Test match strike rate of below 50.

In hindsight, Jayasuriya's slow innings, which looked bad when watched live, looks like a far better innings than to seemed because of the excellent opening partnership and it allowed Dilshan to play the way he played. This is also the only match which was won.

Enough has been written about Jadeja's incomprehensible innings. The mistake was not his, he was unfortunately put in that situation.

8. Great all-round displays (>20 runs and 1+ wicket(s)

No MtId Year Player Name       For  Vs     Runs    <-Analysis->

1.0105 2009 Bravo D.J Win Ind 66 (36) 4.0-0-38-4 Won 2.0100 2009 Simmons L.M.P Win Slk 29 (19) 3.0-0-19-4 3.0103 2009 Kallis J.H Saf Eng 57 (49) 3.0-0-20-2 Won 4.0114 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Saf 51 (34) 4.0-0-16-2 Won 5.0116 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Slk 54 (40) 4.0-0-20-1 Won 6.0096 2009 Mashrafe Mortaza Bng Ire 33 (16) 4.0-0-30-2 7.0093 2009 Naeem Islam Bng Ind 28 (17) 3.0-0-32-2 8.0109 2009 Jadeja R.A Ind Eng 25 (35) 4.0-0-26-2 9.0094 2009 Morkel J.A Saf Sco 24 (11) 1.4-0-15-2 Won 10.0090 2009 ten Doeschate R.N Hol Eng 22 (17) 4.0-0-35-2 Won 11.0102 2009 Cusack A.R Ire Nzl 20 (12) 4.0-0-43-2 12.0107 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Nzl 29 (18) 4.0-0-17-1 Won 13.0099 2009 Kallis J.H Saf Nzl 24 (23) 3.0-0-17-1 Won

Bravo's all-round excellence against India is unmatched and the best in T20 history. A furious 50 and 4 wickets, unbelievable. Lendl Simmons' wonderful performance, unfortunately, was not enough to win. Note also that Shahid Afridi has three all-round displays. It is interesting to note that many of these all-round performances have finished on the losing side. Also of interest is that Jadeja, barring the 15 dot balls, had a pretty good match against England.

9. Team performance summary

Irrespective of the Final result, we should consider the two finalists as the two top teams. The winner, Pakistan, the best T-20 team in the world, should be the first amongst these two equals.

Similarly the four teams which exited after the preliminary league should be dumped at the end, with Netherlands, with an excellent win over England, being the first amongst these four teams.

The other six teams are led by South Africa and followed by West Indies, England, New Zealand, Ireland and India in that order based on their performances.

The exit of India, no doubt causing huge losses to the Indian corporates and Indian players, however, rejuvenated the tournament since it enabled the emphasis to return to the game, brought to the forefront less-fancied but gifted teams and a level of media tranquility. The two finalists epitomised what is right with the game. They richly deserved their places and Pakistan, a single hit away from winning the 2007 final, were most deserving winners.

My next posting will be the follow-up article to the Test Batsmen one.

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

  • gaurav on September 1, 2011, 9:42 GMT

    yes im right with the table statistics. [[ Cryptic but message is conveyed. Ananth: ]]

  • wasiim on June 27, 2009, 7:57 GMT

    why every one forgot the contribution of abdul razzak, it was wickets which cause sri lankan to go slow at begining i dont find his points in final can u rate it [[ Wasim You have not looked at the table correctly. Razzaq's wonderful performance is the third best with 133 points. Ananth: ]]

  • FunCricket on June 25, 2009, 22:30 GMT

    Anantha! Great work. I completely agree with your analyses. One point I wanted to make is usually in cricket tournaments, player of the tournament is based on the games excluding semis and final. I can think of many tournaments in the past where player of the tournament was decided even from the teams which didnt make it into semis. [[ While that may be true I feel that excluding the later matches is a very unprofessional way of doing things. Ananth: ]]

  • malik nanayakkara on June 25, 2009, 18:35 GMT

    I am happy to note that Ananth has mellowed down his earlier statement, from "award to Dilshan is probably a sympathy vote it cannot be justified otherwise" to "sharing the award seems to be an excellent idea". Although you now say that the analysis was not to meant pick a best player of the tournament, your comments in the initial article implies otherwise, where u used the analysis as a yardstick to justify your comments. However, all's well that ends well and I am happy if I have contributed through my responses to see things in the correct perspective. That dosen't prevent me from raising my hat off to Anand for taking the trouble to present us with a comprehensive analysis and also for being gracious enough to reply to our responses. As for the fielding aspect I noticed several articles on the comparison of the fielding skills of the 2 players. Since my views on the subject is likely to consume more than the space permitted I hope to respond to same shortly web master permitting. [[ Malik I think Dilshan is a great all-round fielder while Afridi took outstanding catches. Unfortunately I am able to give credit only for catches. You might have read my earlier mail about Afridi getting the MOS award for the 2007 WC. It is fair that he has had two very good WCs and picks up one MOS award while Dilshan who had a wonderful WC 2009 gets the other one. Maybe we should give credit to the judges for this. Ananth: ]]

  • Ayaz on June 25, 2009, 17:37 GMT

    I just have one question to Pat and others who say Dilshan is "Mr.consistant" and Afridi only performed in the last two games. How can you ignore his CONSISTANT bowling performance match after match when he continued to trouble the opposition in the middle overs and taking regular wickets with excellent strike and economy rate ? Afridi was consistant with the ball and Dilshan with the bat. Maybe Dilshan was slightly better. But in the later stages, Afridi scored two reasonable scores (of 20/20 level) in mid 20's. That actually brought him closer to Dilshan. but then he gave marvelous finishing touch in both Semi-final and final and clearly gone past Dilshan when he failed. why dont you guys consider the fact that it doenst matter for how long during the race an athlete dominates and leads. Its the finishing line that matters and if an athlete, despite leading all the way, fell short of finishing line and others pass him, all his efforts will be ruined.

  • Noman Aziz on June 25, 2009, 12:26 GMT

    I dont agree with your analysis where you said that if Dilshan had scored 30 runs less then SL would've still won the game. I think here we need to keep in mind that the performance of the chasing team depends a lot on the total of the first team. for instance, it is much likely that a team would chase down a score of 135 than if it had to chase 150, although the difference is just 15 runs. A good example is Pak vs SL match in teh super 8 stage. if SL had scored 140 instead of 150 then Pak would definitely have won the game even though the margin of victory for SL was 18 runs! another good example is the final. Although Pak score 138 with 8 balls to spare, you can project that they could've easily score a total of 150. but had SL posted 150 Pak might not have reached even 138...! Noman Aziz

  • Felix Anton on June 25, 2009, 11:24 GMT

    Dear Mr Narayanan

    I find your analysis and logic excellent. My only question is that at times we also ignore the circumstances created by team mates that assist the players to excel. I cite two examples from Pakistan's heroic effort which resulted in Afridi's rise to the top! In bowling, it was Ajmal - nothing spectacular to showcase but overall support by creating the pressure that allowed Afridi to excel. Shoib Malik in the final - that allowed Afridi the support needed to play his game.

    So I ask - is it worth considering 'assists' as an option of providing points (just as some other contributor suggested brownie points) - that may not be contributing to the cumulative scores but also for each effort that you may analyse - I am hoping there were more than one performances in each match that you considered.

    Regards Felix [[ Felix If you read my brief write-up on the T20 Ratings (and more in the Maruti-Cricinfo Ratings pages) you will see that once I determine the quantum of allocation to the two teams then on to the batting and bowling functions of both teams, I then allocate these points to the individuals based on their contributions. So Ajmal's and Shoab's support will be clearly recognized. I have given below the numbers from the Semi Final. Bowling: Afridi: 4-0-16-2 (130 points) Ajmal: 4-0-23-1 (66 points) Aamer: 4-0-30-1 (54 points) Batting Afridi: 54 in 40 (91.2 points) Akmal: 23 in 12 (51 points) Shoaib: 34 in 39 (46.5 points). The above clearly proves that support acts get their due credit. Ananth: ]]

  • Muhammad Asim on June 25, 2009, 8:55 GMT

    The analysis is excellent, good work done. I think everyone has agreed that Afridi should have been judged man of the tournament. But what if he has not been. Just leave it to the judge’s who has been given the responsibility and enjoy the lovely game of cricket. Pak Srilanka series coming up ...

  • imran on June 25, 2009, 1:56 GMT

    i think afridi did good job as a fielder.bowler and bastmen. he had score 176 runs.11 wickets.3 superb catches points are 841... dilshan did 317 runs only with 3 catches. points is only 540.it very clear cut to find out who is best and who did great performance in every field/ [[ Imran What you say is right. The only thing others are justifiably saying is the outstanding contribution Dilshan made in taking Sri Lanka to the Final and the primary reason for Sri Lanka's loss was the way Pakistan hustled Dilshan successfully into making a mistake. Both have performed wonderfully well. Ananth: ]]

  • M Fiaz on June 24, 2009, 21:37 GMT

    Well i was there on sunday afternoon at the pavilion end in the upper Compton stand to enjoy Pakistan’s 20/20 victory. 20/20 has brought something new to the sport, it has filled the gap between Tests and the dying 1st class cricket. ODI's will no doubt also die out and a new bread of cricketer will rack up 600 20/20 games before they retire. I am amazed at the analysis again Ananath, you really go to town with your work. However Ashish P does have a point i believe. I agree it is important to appreciate the differences in Tests and 20/20, or between Mozart and James Brown or Miles Davis and Radiohead but it doesn’t mean they are equal. Now i know that is a subjective point of view but it is a fact that Test cricket 'tests' the cricket player to the limit and is superior in skill in almost every aspect. I've seen Lara, Gilchrist, Richards etc play just as many amazing shots during a test match as any 20/20 player.

    Test cricket is the standard barer, just as Mozart made classical music more popular to the masses than ever before or Miles Davis’ innovations that still influence all modern music. I think Ashish’s point is this (please correct me if I’m wrong Ashish!), Some things are worth looking at in detail and can enrich and surprise and delight because of their greater value and long lasting impact and influence. The phrase ‘Form is temporary, class is permanent’ springs to mind and I believe sum’s up Test and 20/20 cricket.

    Why write a book about Keith Athurton when you can write one about Brian Lara? It would be a waste of time –unread, degraded and forgotten.

    This is not an attack on the analysis, not at all, it’s just questioning its relevance at this time in 20/20 history.

    Regards Moh [[ Fiaz (and Ashish) I know that my T20 articles will get at best 30 comments but the Test articles 500. But as an analyst I have to give my effort and time to do justice to all forms of cricket. Anyway there will be articles on Test, ODI and T20 and the readers should understand the need. Have you seen how many articles Peter Roebuck and Sambit (Bal) have written on T20. I am of the firm view that Test cricket is the greatest and purest form of cricket but it needs the other forms of cricket to survive. Mayve the razzmatazz can be reduced. Ananth: ]]

  • gaurav on September 1, 2011, 9:42 GMT

    yes im right with the table statistics. [[ Cryptic but message is conveyed. Ananth: ]]

  • wasiim on June 27, 2009, 7:57 GMT

    why every one forgot the contribution of abdul razzak, it was wickets which cause sri lankan to go slow at begining i dont find his points in final can u rate it [[ Wasim You have not looked at the table correctly. Razzaq's wonderful performance is the third best with 133 points. Ananth: ]]

  • FunCricket on June 25, 2009, 22:30 GMT

    Anantha! Great work. I completely agree with your analyses. One point I wanted to make is usually in cricket tournaments, player of the tournament is based on the games excluding semis and final. I can think of many tournaments in the past where player of the tournament was decided even from the teams which didnt make it into semis. [[ While that may be true I feel that excluding the later matches is a very unprofessional way of doing things. Ananth: ]]

  • malik nanayakkara on June 25, 2009, 18:35 GMT

    I am happy to note that Ananth has mellowed down his earlier statement, from "award to Dilshan is probably a sympathy vote it cannot be justified otherwise" to "sharing the award seems to be an excellent idea". Although you now say that the analysis was not to meant pick a best player of the tournament, your comments in the initial article implies otherwise, where u used the analysis as a yardstick to justify your comments. However, all's well that ends well and I am happy if I have contributed through my responses to see things in the correct perspective. That dosen't prevent me from raising my hat off to Anand for taking the trouble to present us with a comprehensive analysis and also for being gracious enough to reply to our responses. As for the fielding aspect I noticed several articles on the comparison of the fielding skills of the 2 players. Since my views on the subject is likely to consume more than the space permitted I hope to respond to same shortly web master permitting. [[ Malik I think Dilshan is a great all-round fielder while Afridi took outstanding catches. Unfortunately I am able to give credit only for catches. You might have read my earlier mail about Afridi getting the MOS award for the 2007 WC. It is fair that he has had two very good WCs and picks up one MOS award while Dilshan who had a wonderful WC 2009 gets the other one. Maybe we should give credit to the judges for this. Ananth: ]]

  • Ayaz on June 25, 2009, 17:37 GMT

    I just have one question to Pat and others who say Dilshan is "Mr.consistant" and Afridi only performed in the last two games. How can you ignore his CONSISTANT bowling performance match after match when he continued to trouble the opposition in the middle overs and taking regular wickets with excellent strike and economy rate ? Afridi was consistant with the ball and Dilshan with the bat. Maybe Dilshan was slightly better. But in the later stages, Afridi scored two reasonable scores (of 20/20 level) in mid 20's. That actually brought him closer to Dilshan. but then he gave marvelous finishing touch in both Semi-final and final and clearly gone past Dilshan when he failed. why dont you guys consider the fact that it doenst matter for how long during the race an athlete dominates and leads. Its the finishing line that matters and if an athlete, despite leading all the way, fell short of finishing line and others pass him, all his efforts will be ruined.

  • Noman Aziz on June 25, 2009, 12:26 GMT

    I dont agree with your analysis where you said that if Dilshan had scored 30 runs less then SL would've still won the game. I think here we need to keep in mind that the performance of the chasing team depends a lot on the total of the first team. for instance, it is much likely that a team would chase down a score of 135 than if it had to chase 150, although the difference is just 15 runs. A good example is Pak vs SL match in teh super 8 stage. if SL had scored 140 instead of 150 then Pak would definitely have won the game even though the margin of victory for SL was 18 runs! another good example is the final. Although Pak score 138 with 8 balls to spare, you can project that they could've easily score a total of 150. but had SL posted 150 Pak might not have reached even 138...! Noman Aziz

  • Felix Anton on June 25, 2009, 11:24 GMT

    Dear Mr Narayanan

    I find your analysis and logic excellent. My only question is that at times we also ignore the circumstances created by team mates that assist the players to excel. I cite two examples from Pakistan's heroic effort which resulted in Afridi's rise to the top! In bowling, it was Ajmal - nothing spectacular to showcase but overall support by creating the pressure that allowed Afridi to excel. Shoib Malik in the final - that allowed Afridi the support needed to play his game.

    So I ask - is it worth considering 'assists' as an option of providing points (just as some other contributor suggested brownie points) - that may not be contributing to the cumulative scores but also for each effort that you may analyse - I am hoping there were more than one performances in each match that you considered.

    Regards Felix [[ Felix If you read my brief write-up on the T20 Ratings (and more in the Maruti-Cricinfo Ratings pages) you will see that once I determine the quantum of allocation to the two teams then on to the batting and bowling functions of both teams, I then allocate these points to the individuals based on their contributions. So Ajmal's and Shoab's support will be clearly recognized. I have given below the numbers from the Semi Final. Bowling: Afridi: 4-0-16-2 (130 points) Ajmal: 4-0-23-1 (66 points) Aamer: 4-0-30-1 (54 points) Batting Afridi: 54 in 40 (91.2 points) Akmal: 23 in 12 (51 points) Shoaib: 34 in 39 (46.5 points). The above clearly proves that support acts get their due credit. Ananth: ]]

  • Muhammad Asim on June 25, 2009, 8:55 GMT

    The analysis is excellent, good work done. I think everyone has agreed that Afridi should have been judged man of the tournament. But what if he has not been. Just leave it to the judge’s who has been given the responsibility and enjoy the lovely game of cricket. Pak Srilanka series coming up ...

  • imran on June 25, 2009, 1:56 GMT

    i think afridi did good job as a fielder.bowler and bastmen. he had score 176 runs.11 wickets.3 superb catches points are 841... dilshan did 317 runs only with 3 catches. points is only 540.it very clear cut to find out who is best and who did great performance in every field/ [[ Imran What you say is right. The only thing others are justifiably saying is the outstanding contribution Dilshan made in taking Sri Lanka to the Final and the primary reason for Sri Lanka's loss was the way Pakistan hustled Dilshan successfully into making a mistake. Both have performed wonderfully well. Ananth: ]]

  • M Fiaz on June 24, 2009, 21:37 GMT

    Well i was there on sunday afternoon at the pavilion end in the upper Compton stand to enjoy Pakistan’s 20/20 victory. 20/20 has brought something new to the sport, it has filled the gap between Tests and the dying 1st class cricket. ODI's will no doubt also die out and a new bread of cricketer will rack up 600 20/20 games before they retire. I am amazed at the analysis again Ananath, you really go to town with your work. However Ashish P does have a point i believe. I agree it is important to appreciate the differences in Tests and 20/20, or between Mozart and James Brown or Miles Davis and Radiohead but it doesn’t mean they are equal. Now i know that is a subjective point of view but it is a fact that Test cricket 'tests' the cricket player to the limit and is superior in skill in almost every aspect. I've seen Lara, Gilchrist, Richards etc play just as many amazing shots during a test match as any 20/20 player.

    Test cricket is the standard barer, just as Mozart made classical music more popular to the masses than ever before or Miles Davis’ innovations that still influence all modern music. I think Ashish’s point is this (please correct me if I’m wrong Ashish!), Some things are worth looking at in detail and can enrich and surprise and delight because of their greater value and long lasting impact and influence. The phrase ‘Form is temporary, class is permanent’ springs to mind and I believe sum’s up Test and 20/20 cricket.

    Why write a book about Keith Athurton when you can write one about Brian Lara? It would be a waste of time –unread, degraded and forgotten.

    This is not an attack on the analysis, not at all, it’s just questioning its relevance at this time in 20/20 history.

    Regards Moh [[ Fiaz (and Ashish) I know that my T20 articles will get at best 30 comments but the Test articles 500. But as an analyst I have to give my effort and time to do justice to all forms of cricket. Anyway there will be articles on Test, ODI and T20 and the readers should understand the need. Have you seen how many articles Peter Roebuck and Sambit (Bal) have written on T20. I am of the firm view that Test cricket is the greatest and purest form of cricket but it needs the other forms of cricket to survive. Mayve the razzmatazz can be reduced. Ananth: ]]

  • Iram on June 24, 2009, 20:59 GMT

    Well done Ananth Narayanan, I am most impressed with your analysis, and cannot disagree with any of it as I could never compile this myself!

    Sorry to bring this up, but maybe giving the award to Dilshan would be a bit like giving the 2007 award to Misbah! Disappointed Afridi did not get the award, but cannot see that one bad performance made Dilshan undeserving of the award. The Lankans deserved the title every bit as much as Pakistan did in 2007 IMO, but they came 2nd and that is how it is recorded.

    SL were my backup team, in case my beloved failed at the 1st hurdle against the Dutch. After Lahore, I would not have minded them winning, but their fairytale will have to wait. Maybe Samaweera can make the 20:20 team and hit the winning runs in 2010!! [[ Iram You have opened up a new avenue. It is ironic that it was Shahid Afridi who won the Man of the Series for the 2007 World Cup. It is possible that there was an Indian player or two (Yuvraj/Gambhir) who could have won the award. But their performances were not that much higher as Afridi's was this time. Ananth: ]]

  • Ejaz on June 24, 2009, 17:45 GMT

    Very good article Mr. Narayanan! What I liked most about this article is that you are promptly replying to readers queries.

    Anyway, after reading comments I have come up to the point that people are not giving good weight to bowling performance.

    Do you think 13 wkts are way less than 400 runs in value (and importance)? [[ Ejaz Yes there is a tendency to ignore bowling performances. However the computer and my analysis programs do not do that differentiation and hence you will see the bowlers coming to the fore. All-rounders and bowlers get their credit. Ananth: ]]

  • RRRR on June 24, 2009, 15:12 GMT

    The comment "The award to Dilshan was probably a sympathy vote" diminishes the credibility of this article as it introduces a strongly emotive/personal view into a statistical analysis based article (and the comments here surely indicate that it is not even close to being the general consensus). Suggest that it should be removed, irrespective of whether you think Afridi or Dilshan should get the award. In statistical analysis, it isn't enough to say: `here are the points for each player, hence this is the rating''. The fact that Dilshan is ranked 4th (and most ppl including yourself agree that Afridi and he are the only two contenders for the top two posts) tells us that your point/weighting system is incorrect and should be tweaked. Especially true since you don't have any theoretical basis for point allocation. Instead effort should be spent reworking the system rather than drawing erroneous conclusions. Benefit? A known good system can be useful when the top players are not obvious.

  • Flyinghigh2006 on June 24, 2009, 14:02 GMT

    Dear Ananth, This is a great analysis. Kudos to you. In reading through all comments so far, I think the balance does tilt to Afridi....and that the POT can have at best been a shared award. On a solus basis, it should have still gone to Afridi. Will await your subsequent analysis to how things change for the lesser mortals (barring Afridi and Dilshan). Cheers

  • Ashish Panath on June 24, 2009, 12:37 GMT

    I'm trying hard to find the point in the analysis of such a hap-hazzard form of the game. You have my praise for the effort but i wonder why you bothered. Sure it's nice to see who statiscally was the greatest test batsman or bowler or allrounder And even Odi's stats have a place with some players having played several hundred matches. But 20/20??????

    Although i admit i do enjoy the thrill of 20/20 it isn't really cricket in the sense of a a fair match between bat and ball (batsman could be in for 20 overs but bowler is barely warmed up before he has had his lot). People really really care that Lara is rated higher than Sachin over an entire career or vice versa, who cares that Afridi or Bravo were better at slogging over a two week period? [[ Ashish You cannot find a more ardent supporter of Test cricket than me. However I also have realized that the shorter forms of the game have their own charm. There have been great innovations which have come over the years, viz., slower ball, slow bouncer, reverse sweep, paddle sweep, dilscoop, marillier shot, in-out fields, perfectly placed chip shots, wk standing up to medium pacers et al. And look at the fielding standards over the years. One might revere Beethoven or MSSubbulakshmi or Jesudass but that does not mean we should have no time for Beatles, Dylan, Sting, Aerosmith et al. I can appreciate a Gurudutt or Bimal Roy classic as much as a Farhan Akhtar or Aditya Chopra movie. I take as much pleasure in the T20 analysis as the Test batsmen analysis. Regards Ananth: ]]

  • khurem on June 24, 2009, 5:29 GMT

    Briliant analysis. There is one comment though which I like to make:

    I think Malik Nanayakkara point is somewhat correct about comparison between Bravo and Dilshan. What i feel is the rating system that you have implemented is based on the aggregate performance throughout the tournament. What I mean with that is the fact that if a player did superbly in a particular match, and then fail in the next two, he may still end up getting higher points than a player who has consistently played good knocks to make his team win all matches. I think there should be some 'brownie' points for (a) being consistent and (b) significance in winning your team a particular match. If that can be implemented in the rating/scoring model, then I guess Dilshan would have higher points than Bravo, and that would be more fair. [[ Khurem This was not meant to be used in this way at all. If you check out the Maruti-Cricinfo Ratings and see the T20 Ratings, all what you mention have been implemented. I have not done a Best player for the World Cup at all. If I do that I am sure the gap between Dilshan and Afridi would come down and I am sure Dilshan would be rated higher than Bravo. As of now it is adding the Batting and Bowling points. Also I am working on the problem I myself have mentioned in getting the target-setting innings correct. My final take is that these two, Afridi and Dilshan, stand head and shoulders above the others. Ananth: ]]

  • Shakil on June 24, 2009, 4:17 GMT

    Hello Ananth,

    I really liked this article. I am reading about who should have been the man of the tournament.

    I was also a bit disappointed that Afridi didn't get it. But now going through the stats, it was a tournament where bowlers dominated. Dilshan failed at the wrong time but he brought his team atleast to finals. And not forget that he played a lone hand in getting Sri Lanka a respectable total in the Semis so they can go into the finals. I was most happy when he got out on duck hehe. But it should have been shared considering the way they played their game. [[ Shakil That is a very fair observation. In retrospect the sharing of award seems to be an excellent idea. Dilshan's failure in the final is more than compensated by his being primarily responsible for taking SLK to the final. Let us close it at that. Ananth: ]]

  • Malik Nanayakkara on June 24, 2009, 4:11 GMT

    I donot have a problem with the award being shared by Dilshan & Afridi although I firmly agree with Pat in respect of Dilshan's consistency. However what I cannot accept is Ananth attempting to justify the award as a matter based on sympathy. To say so would be to belittle respected cricketing personalities in the calibre of Clive Lloyd et al. I also cannot agree with the rating system used by Ananth to decide on the POT award. Lets leave Afridi aside for a moment. According to him Bravo stands way above Dilshan in the ratings where Sri Lanka comprehensively beat WI on both occasions they met with Bravo going for a first ball duck and conceding plenty with the ball too, in the semi-final whereas Dilshan scored thumping half centuries on both occasions. So to even imagine Bravo being ahead of Dilshan on POT award is hilarious. I believe the impact a player has on the tournament also has to be taken note of where the 'Dilscoop' invented by Dishan would have also had a definite bearing [[ Malik "Hilarious" is trying to get "Dilscoop" into analysis. Let me emphasize again that I understand clearly what is being talked about. Forget about points and everything else. In retrospect the sharing of award seems to be an excellent idea. Dilshan's failure in the final is more than compensated by his being primarily responsible for taking SLK to the final. Let us close it at that. Ananth: ]]

  • Umair Muzaffar on June 24, 2009, 0:31 GMT

    Hi Ananth,

    Putting together these stats must have taken a lot of effort and time. Thanks.

    I actually agree with both you and Malik Nanayakkara's take on the topic of Afridi VS Dilshan.

    In the end, I believe that the award should have been shared. But if I were to choose one Player of the tournament then I would choose Shahid Afridi. The distinction is not based on numbers but based how Shahid Afridi changed his natural game from boom boom to look and take singles/doubles and made the difference.

    By the way how would you rate umpires based on their performances in this tournament?

    Umair [[ Umair I would accept that the award should have been shared if Dilshan had produced a good innings in the final and still Pakistan had won. If Sri Lanka had won because of this Dilshan's innings then, maybe, the award should have gone to Dilshan. Anyhow two great performers. Let us enjoy their skills without splitting hairs. No I cannot rate the umpires at all since only their names appear on the scorecards, not what they did. Ananth: ]]

  • Shahid on June 23, 2009, 21:34 GMT

    @Malik Nanayakara, How can you say Afridi didn't perform in those earlier matches. Look at his bowling it alone matches Dilshans batting. and then later on he performs in both aspects of the game. 11 wicket are at top, economy rate is at top, then put scores in last 4 matches. and yes much better fielder then Dilshan. Afridi was a clear man of the tournament.

  • Pat on June 23, 2009, 18:58 GMT

    Interesting analysis on player of the tournament. I am sure adjudicators had a hard time selecting the winner. If they looked at closely at performances of Dilshan and Afridi, they would have seen the following; Sri Lanka went to the final because of Dilshan's batting and his consistency. He failed once before, against Ireland and SL just managed to scrape through. Pakistan went past the super eights thanks to players other than Afridi but won the semi and final because of Afridi heroics. Someone can argue Afridi effort was a "flash in the pan". They have given the award to Mr. Consistency, notwithstanding the failure in the final, and not to the player who came up with two execellent efforts (out of seven). Afridi got what he deserved; two MOM awards for semi and final.

  • Yogesh on June 23, 2009, 18:25 GMT

    " If Gayle had failed, West Indies would have lost. If Dilshan had scored 30 runs fewer, Sri Lanka might very well have won." Is this valid enough justification to rate Gayle above Dilshan ? Dilshan scored on a wicket where everybody else apart from Gayle was struggling. Gayle scored on a batting beauty with help from Fletcher and where Aussies managed 170+. On paper, yes Australia was stronger but there can be no doubt as to which was difficult bowling to face on the given days. Except that it was in a chase, Gayle's innings doesn't score anything else over Dilshan's. SL defended 150+ with ease doesn't imply 120 would have sufficed. Without those extra 30 runs WI wouldn't have been forced to risk their wickets in middle overs and collapse. [[ Yogesh All your points are correct. My own take on this is that Dilshan's innings should be rated slightly higher than Gayle's. However it was essential that I give an explanation after going through the calculations. However let me add that all what was said about Gayle's innings was true. In addition it was a batting win and he gets a lion's share of the credit. Sri Lanka's was as much a bowling win and Dilshan necessarily has to share the credit with the bowlers. The margin of win was another problem insofar as rating Dilshan's innings. The program seems to treat the chasing innings perfectly. However have realized that I should cater to the type of setting-target innings in a better manner. The difficulty of scoring runs has to be factored in. The % of the innings score is another factor. I am working on these and would post a revised table soon. Ananth: ]]

  • west indian on June 23, 2009, 14:42 GMT

    Great Analysis as usual but lendl simmons effort was not made mention against sri lanka wen he bowled 3 overs for jus 19 runs an included 3 vital wickets.it was more so important since the sri lankans were on a rampage an were in the process of blowing away west indies [[ Simmons' excellent bowling effort fetched 82 points and was 26th. You will see that he is placed at 12th in the World Cup players' list. Ananth: ]]

  • Malik Nanayakkara on June 23, 2009, 14:18 GMT

    I totally disagree with your comment about Dilshan being adjudged the player of the tournament on 'sympathetic' consideration. I think it's a load of trash and does not do justice to your article. Pakistan on their way to the final lost on 2 occasions despite Afridi's bowling Performances,(He failed with the bat prior to the semi-finals) whereas Dilshan's performances were instrumental in Sri Lanka's unbeaten run until the final where his failure most definitely caused Sri Lanka's defeat. Hence I beleive his value to the team's success rates above Afridi's where Sri Lanka had much tougher opponents in the initial stages being placed in the 'group of death'. Dilshan's consistency throught the tournament where he along with Chris Gayle was instrumental in sending the Aussies crahing out of the tournament inasmuch the closest rival to him in batting aggregate is 70+ runs less which in t20 mode is quite significant. Hence I beleive the correct judgment has been made in this instance. [[ Malik The first thing you should learn is to avoid using strong words such as "trash" which is wholly undeserving and I would have sent your mail to "trash" but for the fact that I understood your frustration.. Let me first say that I am a strong supporter of Sri Lanka and they are my favourite team, barring none. When Sri Lanka and Pakistan entered the final, I was indeed very happy since either way there would have been a deserving winner and both countries have gone through hell over the past year. You have talked about Afridi not delivering in couple of earlier matches conveniently ignoring the fact that Afridi delivered when it was needed, in the semi final and final. Unfortunately Dilshan failed when he was needed most, in the final. Do not forget that. Also on what basis can you say that Dilshan's 317 runs + 3 catches + failure in the final should score over Afridi's 176 runs + 11 wickets + 3 catches + success in the final. The points clearly show this. Afridi got 841 points and Dilshan 541. Ananth: ]]

  • Munir on June 23, 2009, 13:48 GMT

    crazy stuff...brilliant use of stats and very thorough analysis.u rock. Pakistan Zinda Baad

  • Mohammed on June 23, 2009, 12:51 GMT

    I think there's no doubt at all that this tournament, Afridi was the outstanding player. I really don't see how Dilshan who's performances were very good, can be put ahead of Afridi. Afridi should also have won it because he stepped up his game when it really mattered. Economical and wicket taking bowling which contained every single batting unit in the tournament followed up with some cameos towards the later end and then building up to two match winning innings. Afridi is the player of the tournament, no two ways about it.

  • Manzur Khan on June 23, 2009, 11:51 GMT

    Pakistan's Joy was only marred by the incredible decision to give Dilshan the man of the tournament award.Afridi's 11 wickets and the lowest economy than all the other leading bowlers and his extraordinary fielding and energy cant be matched by a subdued dilshan in the field...in fact we hardly noticed Dilshan while fielding...I am grateful you made the point for Afridi..but one wonders as to what place sympathy should have in Cricket...if thnigs are to be decided on sympathy then perhaps we should have given the World cup to Afghanistan!......anyways a great analysis..... [[ Manzur Don't get me wrong. I mentioned sympathy only from the point of view of the prevalent tendency to sympathize with the losing team. It is completely wrong and makes a mockery of the whole process. I have rarely seen a tournament which was turned on its head by one player. I am one of Afridi's great fans. Players like him have to be given their chance to fail because when they succeed they do so in a spectacular fashion. Symonds was one until he stretched his luck too far. Yuvraj, Mendis and Bravo are other such players. Ananth: ]]

  • Arvind on June 23, 2009, 8:06 GMT

    Hi Ananth As always thanks a lot for putting up the analytical perspective on the T20 world cup, so promptly, it is indeed very informative.

    On my blog, I put a little companion to your analysis of the just concluded T20 world cup. In my analysis I show that in T20 cricket, it is not possible to determine the quality of a bowler just based on his economy rate and strike rate. The differences between good and and a part-time bowlers are more pronounced in higher order moments because the two classes of bowlers tend to generate very different distribution which can not be captured just by average and standard deviation.

    http://rightarmoverfast.blogspot.com/

    Arvind

  • wanderer on June 22, 2009, 19:41 GMT

    Great analysis as usual. But I just want to point to an earlier blog of yours when you said that in Twenty/20 whoever the captain chooses to bowl doesn't matter. I think this tournament has shown that bowling is almost as vital as batting now, especially on pitches which offer just enough assistance.

    Also who in your opinion was the player of the tournament, Afridi or Dilshan? Any statistical analysis to back this up? [[ W, Thank you for a very valuable comment. First let me say that I should have had the Best Player table at the beginning itself. I have since then added the same. I have reproduced below an extract from there which answers your query. There is no doubt that Shahid Afridi was the most influential player, by a few miles, during the World Cup. He is ahead of Dwayne Bravo by over 200 points. Umar Gul is third and Dilshan is fourth, followed by Kallis. The award to Dilshan was probably a sympathy vote. It cannot be justified otherwise. Re the importance of bowlers, I am right and wrong. If I gave the impression that bowlers are unimportant, it is wrong. They have their very important role to play. I am right in that the role of bowlers is increased in bowler-friendly conditions such as South Africa and England. Come to India or Pakistan, the bowlers will again play second fiddle. Thank you once again for a valuable comment. Ananth: ]]

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • wanderer on June 22, 2009, 19:41 GMT

    Great analysis as usual. But I just want to point to an earlier blog of yours when you said that in Twenty/20 whoever the captain chooses to bowl doesn't matter. I think this tournament has shown that bowling is almost as vital as batting now, especially on pitches which offer just enough assistance.

    Also who in your opinion was the player of the tournament, Afridi or Dilshan? Any statistical analysis to back this up? [[ W, Thank you for a very valuable comment. First let me say that I should have had the Best Player table at the beginning itself. I have since then added the same. I have reproduced below an extract from there which answers your query. There is no doubt that Shahid Afridi was the most influential player, by a few miles, during the World Cup. He is ahead of Dwayne Bravo by over 200 points. Umar Gul is third and Dilshan is fourth, followed by Kallis. The award to Dilshan was probably a sympathy vote. It cannot be justified otherwise. Re the importance of bowlers, I am right and wrong. If I gave the impression that bowlers are unimportant, it is wrong. They have their very important role to play. I am right in that the role of bowlers is increased in bowler-friendly conditions such as South Africa and England. Come to India or Pakistan, the bowlers will again play second fiddle. Thank you once again for a valuable comment. Ananth: ]]

  • Arvind on June 23, 2009, 8:06 GMT

    Hi Ananth As always thanks a lot for putting up the analytical perspective on the T20 world cup, so promptly, it is indeed very informative.

    On my blog, I put a little companion to your analysis of the just concluded T20 world cup. In my analysis I show that in T20 cricket, it is not possible to determine the quality of a bowler just based on his economy rate and strike rate. The differences between good and and a part-time bowlers are more pronounced in higher order moments because the two classes of bowlers tend to generate very different distribution which can not be captured just by average and standard deviation.

    http://rightarmoverfast.blogspot.com/

    Arvind

  • Manzur Khan on June 23, 2009, 11:51 GMT

    Pakistan's Joy was only marred by the incredible decision to give Dilshan the man of the tournament award.Afridi's 11 wickets and the lowest economy than all the other leading bowlers and his extraordinary fielding and energy cant be matched by a subdued dilshan in the field...in fact we hardly noticed Dilshan while fielding...I am grateful you made the point for Afridi..but one wonders as to what place sympathy should have in Cricket...if thnigs are to be decided on sympathy then perhaps we should have given the World cup to Afghanistan!......anyways a great analysis..... [[ Manzur Don't get me wrong. I mentioned sympathy only from the point of view of the prevalent tendency to sympathize with the losing team. It is completely wrong and makes a mockery of the whole process. I have rarely seen a tournament which was turned on its head by one player. I am one of Afridi's great fans. Players like him have to be given their chance to fail because when they succeed they do so in a spectacular fashion. Symonds was one until he stretched his luck too far. Yuvraj, Mendis and Bravo are other such players. Ananth: ]]

  • Mohammed on June 23, 2009, 12:51 GMT

    I think there's no doubt at all that this tournament, Afridi was the outstanding player. I really don't see how Dilshan who's performances were very good, can be put ahead of Afridi. Afridi should also have won it because he stepped up his game when it really mattered. Economical and wicket taking bowling which contained every single batting unit in the tournament followed up with some cameos towards the later end and then building up to two match winning innings. Afridi is the player of the tournament, no two ways about it.

  • Munir on June 23, 2009, 13:48 GMT

    crazy stuff...brilliant use of stats and very thorough analysis.u rock. Pakistan Zinda Baad

  • Malik Nanayakkara on June 23, 2009, 14:18 GMT

    I totally disagree with your comment about Dilshan being adjudged the player of the tournament on 'sympathetic' consideration. I think it's a load of trash and does not do justice to your article. Pakistan on their way to the final lost on 2 occasions despite Afridi's bowling Performances,(He failed with the bat prior to the semi-finals) whereas Dilshan's performances were instrumental in Sri Lanka's unbeaten run until the final where his failure most definitely caused Sri Lanka's defeat. Hence I beleive his value to the team's success rates above Afridi's where Sri Lanka had much tougher opponents in the initial stages being placed in the 'group of death'. Dilshan's consistency throught the tournament where he along with Chris Gayle was instrumental in sending the Aussies crahing out of the tournament inasmuch the closest rival to him in batting aggregate is 70+ runs less which in t20 mode is quite significant. Hence I beleive the correct judgment has been made in this instance. [[ Malik The first thing you should learn is to avoid using strong words such as "trash" which is wholly undeserving and I would have sent your mail to "trash" but for the fact that I understood your frustration.. Let me first say that I am a strong supporter of Sri Lanka and they are my favourite team, barring none. When Sri Lanka and Pakistan entered the final, I was indeed very happy since either way there would have been a deserving winner and both countries have gone through hell over the past year. You have talked about Afridi not delivering in couple of earlier matches conveniently ignoring the fact that Afridi delivered when it was needed, in the semi final and final. Unfortunately Dilshan failed when he was needed most, in the final. Do not forget that. Also on what basis can you say that Dilshan's 317 runs + 3 catches + failure in the final should score over Afridi's 176 runs + 11 wickets + 3 catches + success in the final. The points clearly show this. Afridi got 841 points and Dilshan 541. Ananth: ]]

  • west indian on June 23, 2009, 14:42 GMT

    Great Analysis as usual but lendl simmons effort was not made mention against sri lanka wen he bowled 3 overs for jus 19 runs an included 3 vital wickets.it was more so important since the sri lankans were on a rampage an were in the process of blowing away west indies [[ Simmons' excellent bowling effort fetched 82 points and was 26th. You will see that he is placed at 12th in the World Cup players' list. Ananth: ]]

  • Yogesh on June 23, 2009, 18:25 GMT

    " If Gayle had failed, West Indies would have lost. If Dilshan had scored 30 runs fewer, Sri Lanka might very well have won." Is this valid enough justification to rate Gayle above Dilshan ? Dilshan scored on a wicket where everybody else apart from Gayle was struggling. Gayle scored on a batting beauty with help from Fletcher and where Aussies managed 170+. On paper, yes Australia was stronger but there can be no doubt as to which was difficult bowling to face on the given days. Except that it was in a chase, Gayle's innings doesn't score anything else over Dilshan's. SL defended 150+ with ease doesn't imply 120 would have sufficed. Without those extra 30 runs WI wouldn't have been forced to risk their wickets in middle overs and collapse. [[ Yogesh All your points are correct. My own take on this is that Dilshan's innings should be rated slightly higher than Gayle's. However it was essential that I give an explanation after going through the calculations. However let me add that all what was said about Gayle's innings was true. In addition it was a batting win and he gets a lion's share of the credit. Sri Lanka's was as much a bowling win and Dilshan necessarily has to share the credit with the bowlers. The margin of win was another problem insofar as rating Dilshan's innings. The program seems to treat the chasing innings perfectly. However have realized that I should cater to the type of setting-target innings in a better manner. The difficulty of scoring runs has to be factored in. The % of the innings score is another factor. I am working on these and would post a revised table soon. Ananth: ]]

  • Pat on June 23, 2009, 18:58 GMT

    Interesting analysis on player of the tournament. I am sure adjudicators had a hard time selecting the winner. If they looked at closely at performances of Dilshan and Afridi, they would have seen the following; Sri Lanka went to the final because of Dilshan's batting and his consistency. He failed once before, against Ireland and SL just managed to scrape through. Pakistan went past the super eights thanks to players other than Afridi but won the semi and final because of Afridi heroics. Someone can argue Afridi effort was a "flash in the pan". They have given the award to Mr. Consistency, notwithstanding the failure in the final, and not to the player who came up with two execellent efforts (out of seven). Afridi got what he deserved; two MOM awards for semi and final.

  • Shahid on June 23, 2009, 21:34 GMT

    @Malik Nanayakara, How can you say Afridi didn't perform in those earlier matches. Look at his bowling it alone matches Dilshans batting. and then later on he performs in both aspects of the game. 11 wicket are at top, economy rate is at top, then put scores in last 4 matches. and yes much better fielder then Dilshan. Afridi was a clear man of the tournament.