Batsman by bowler / pitch quality: The final grouping

I was about three-fourths into this article when the news about Rahul Dravid's retirement came through. After wiping a tear or two (ok, a lot more), I was tempted to replace this article with a tribute to Dravid. It took me only a minute to dismiss that idea. That is not the way the incomparable Dravid would have planned his innings and I was going to take time, look at all nuances, derive additional facts and figures and build the article, brick by brick. That is the fitting tribute we can give to one of the greats. All these cliches found their true meaning when applied to Dravid. In many other cases, these are but hyperbole.

I have finally arrived at the concluding article on this theme. I am going to classify runs scored by batsmen in the composite group comparing of the Bowling Quality and Pitch type, referred to in my last article. I believe that almost all problems present with the earlier Pitch Quality Index have been taken care of. I will do the classification with a brief introduction and will let the readers digest the same.

I have shown one major table and provided a number of tables for readers to unload and view. For a change let me keep one of my articles brief and to the point.

1. The major benefit is that I have avoided the wide variations which occurred when a single Test was considered and negated the impact of one's own bowlers had. Of course when I do the Innings Ratings analysis, I will re-visit the single Test theme and do what is required based on inputs given by Unni, Arjun, Ali, Gerry et al.

2. The problem of double counting has disappeared. When I look at a batsman's score I slot it into a group based on how easy or difficult run-scoring was, in the concerned location, during the specified period. The bowlers do not get into this at all.

3. A country might have started in one manner but completely changed its character over the years. Pakistan was one of the toughest countries to visit during the early years and over the past decade has completely changed. Compare England twenty and thirty years back. All these variations have been taken care of. Pakistan, during the 1946-1950 period had a PTI ratio value 1.23 while Pakistan's PTI ratio value during the period 2005-2012 is 0.74. England's figures for the two successive periods of 1980s and 1990s are 1.06 and 0.97 respectively.

4. There is no assumption that scoring at home is/was easy and scoring away is/was tough. This facet of the analysis is covered based on hard numbers. In New Zealand scoring was very difficult, often more so for the home team than the visiting teams. This is taken care of.

5. Within one country, there is a clear separation of home teams and visiting teams. So there is no adding of 80 (home) and 60 (visiting) in Australia during the 2000s to arrive at an unsatisfactory 70.

6. Within the same country group, batsmen runs are further classified based on the bowling quality. Example, Laxman's 167 in 2000 goes into the combined group 8 (Pitch-3 & BowQ-5) while Laxman's own 148, four years later goes into combined group of 7 (Pitch-3 & BowQ-4).

7. There is no grouping based on absolute values. Rather it is based on a true peer comparison basis and is only a dimension-less ratio. Changes over the various eras will be reflected correctly. This is peer comparison at its best. Same era and across countries.

8. One good point is that many teams starting in Test cricket have had a tough time, even while playing at home. The runs scored by the batsmen from these teams get recognition of the tougher conditions faced by them.

9. Readers can argue that I could have taken 15 time periods instead of 9. Possible. Readers can also argue that I could have taken the top-7 scores. Granted. However there is no end to these suggestions. These periods reflect distinct eras and have sufficient Tests played during each period to have a very sound basis.

10. Finally a quick perusal at the tables will indicate that the sharp differences which existed in the earlier analysis have now gone since the base has moved from a single Test to a period/country combination. There are some intriguing changes. It is now clear that the objections put forward by Unni, Ali and couple of other readers were quite valid. Some players, indeed, benefited by their bowlers' quality, very significantly. Look at the revised tables. The West Indian pitches during 1970-80 were good to bat on, at least for the home team. They were averaging 75.0 (all-teams 67.7) and 72.2 (all-teams 63.3) and batsmen like Richards scored a fair bit of runs at home. And they rarely faced a Group 5 bowling attack. Many thanks to all these readers.

First, the grouping methodology for the Pitch Type Index. The Pitch Type Index is the ratio between the Home/Visiting Top-7 Partnership average for the period/country and the Home/Visiting Top-7 Partnership average for the period/all-countries. A ratio of greater than 1.0 indicates tough situations and ratio below 1.00 indicates easier batting situations. I will not cover this in any greater detail. Details are available in the previous article, link provided here.

PTI-Home groupings: Total - 2022 innings (The 12 neutral Tests have no home teams)
PTI value of 1.15 - 1.50 : PTI Group 5    238 (11.7%)
PTI value of 1.04 - 1.15 : PTI Group 4    432 (21.2%)
PTI value of 0.93 - 1.04 : PTI Group 3    745 (36.6%)
PTI value of 0.88 - 0.93 : PTI Group 2    406 (20.0%)
PTI value of 0.70 - 0.88 : PTI Group 1    201 ( 9.9%)

PTI-Away groupings: Total - 2034 innings
PTI value of 1.09 - 1.50 : PTI Group 5    198 ( 9.7%)
PTI value of 1.06 - 1.09 : PTI Group 4    441 (21.7%)
PTI value of 0.94 - 1.06 : PTI Group 3    731 (35.9%)
PTI value of 0.89 - 0.94 : PTI Group 2    456 (22.4%)
PTI value of 0.70 - 0.89 : PTI Group 1    208 (10.2%)

The working out of these groups has not been rocket science. I have done this based on my pet theory of normal distribution. Approximately 10% at either end, approximately 20% at either next-to-end group and 30% in the middle group. I know this adds to 90, but readers will get the drift. And this varies between Home and Visiting sets in order to get the required distribution.

The Bowling Quality Index runs from 5 (real tough bowling attack) to 1 (very weak bowling attack). The Pitch Type Index runs from 5 (very difficult to score period) to 1 (real batting feast period. The appropriate home/visiting numbers are used. Thus the composite group runs from 10 (runs are to be treasured like Platinum) to 2 (free buffet table, full of runs).

I have decided to present this in only two broad groups. The B group which comprises of the composite groups 2, 3, 4 and 5. Possible combinations of BQI & PTI are 3+2 4+1 2+2 or 3+1 or 1+2 or 1+1. These combinations clearly prove that either of the indices almost never exceed 3 and a 1 was a distinct possibility. These were really the conditions in which it was quite easy to score runs. Compare with the other group called A group which incorporated composite groups 10 to 6. At 6, it was either 5+1 or 4+2 or 3+3. If there was a 1 there was a 5 to compensate for that. Hence these runs were relatively tougher to score.

I have added below, the updated table which will have the A group having the composite groups 10-6 and the B group having the composite groups 5-2. This will ensure that the lowest composite group in the tougher A group is 6 (3+3 or 4+2 or 5+1). No one can now complain that the 6 does not represent relatively difficult conditions for the batsman to play on.

In summary, the alternate table incorporates a switch of composite group 5 from the tougher A to easier B group.

The A (10-6) and B (5-2) broad groups summary for top 40 batsmen

Batsman	Country	Inns	NOs	Runs	Avge	(10-6)	A	Group	Summary	====>	(5-2)	B	Group	Summary	====>
						Inns	NOs	Runs	Avge	%C-Runs	Inns	NOs	Runs	Avge	%C-Runs
Tendulkar S.R	Ind	311	32	15470	55.45	153	12	7247	51.40	46.8%	158	20	8223	59.59	53.2%
Dravid R	Ind	286	32	13288	52.31	143	12	5698	43.50	42.9%	143	20	7590	61.71	57.1%
Ponting R.T	Aus	276	29	13196	53.43	125	8	5558	47.50	42.1%	151	21	7638	58.75	57.9%
Kallis J.H	Saf	254	39	12260	57.02	164	19	6998	48.26	57.1%	90	20	5262	75.17	42.9%
Lara B.C	Win	232	6	11953	52.89	178	5	8930	51.62	74.7%	54	1	3023	57.04	25.3%
Border A.R	Aus	265	44	11174	50.56	193	34	7529	47.35	67.4%	72	10	3645	58.79	32.6%
Waugh S.R	Aus	260	46	10927	51.06	152	25	5868	46.20	53.7%	108	21	5059	58.15	46.3%
Gavaskar S.M	Ind	214	16	10122	51.12	128	6	5518	45.23	54.5%	86	10	4604	60.58	45.5%
Jayawardene M	Slk	213	13	10089	50.44	116	7	5376	49.32	53.3%	97	6	4713	51.79	46.7%
Chanderpaul S	Win	234	37	9709	49.28	179	27	7259	47.76	74.8%	55	10	2450	54.44	25.2%
Sangakkara K.C	Slk	179	12	9347	55.97	95	6	4619	51.90	49.4%	84	6	4728	60.62	50.6%
Gooch G.A	Eng	215	6	8900	42.58	183	3	7253	40.29	81.5%	32	3	1647	56.79	18.5%
Javed Miandad	Pak	189	21	8832	52.57	95	5	3827	42.52	43.3%	94	16	5005	64.17	56.7%
Inzamam-ul-Haq	Pak	200	22	8830	49.61	123	8	4706	40.92	53.3%	77	14	4124	65.46	46.7%
Laxman V.V.S	Ind	225	34	8781	45.97	114	10	4222	40.60	48.1%	111	24	4559	52.40	51.9%
Hayden M.L	Aus	184	14	8626	50.74	80	0	3097	38.71	35.9%	104	14	5529	61.43	64.1%
Richards I.V.A	Win	182	12	8540	50.24	101	6	5111	53.80	59.8%	81	6	3429	45.72	40.2%
Stewart A.J	Eng	235	21	8465	39.56	202	17	6909	37.35	81.6%	33	4	1556	53.66	18.4%
Gower D.I	Eng	204	18	8231	44.25	176	14	6962	42.98	84.6%	28	4	1269	52.88	15.4%
Sehwag V	Ind	167	6	8178	50.80	69	1	3183	46.81	38.9%	98	5	4995	53.71	61.1%
Boycott G	Eng	193	23	8114	47.73	113	11	4780	46.86	58.9%	80	12	3334	49.03	41.1%
Sobers G.St.A	Win	160	21	8032	57.78	69	8	3458	56.69	43.1%	91	13	4574	58.64	56.9%
Waugh M.E	Aus	209	17	8029	41.82	136	12	5188	41.84	64.6%	73	5	2841	41.78	35.4%
Smith G.C	Saf	168	11	7761	49.43	107	6	4197	41.55	54.1%	61	5	3564	63.64	45.9%
Atherton M.A	Eng	212	7	7728	37.70	195	6	6830	36.14	88.4%	17	1	898	56.12	11.6%
Langer J.L	Aus	182	12	7696	45.27	83	4	3020	38.23	39.2%	99	8	4676	51.38	60.8%
Cowdrey M.C	Eng	188	15	7624	44.07	115	5	4433	40.30	58.1%	73	10	3191	50.65	41.9%
Greenidge C.G	Win	185	16	7558	44.72	107	4	4222	40.99	55.9%	78	12	3336	50.55	44.1%
Mohammad Yousuf	Pak	156	12	7530	52.29	110	6	4188	40.27	55.6%	46	6	3342	83.55	44.4%
Taylor M.A	Aus	186	13	7525	43.50	117	9	4465	41.34	59.3%	69	4	3060	47.08	40.7%
Lloyd C.H	Win	175	14	7515	46.68	102	9	4334	46.60	57.7%	73	5	3181	46.78	42.3%
Haynes D.L	Win	202	25	7487	42.30	107	4	3925	38.11	52.4%	95	21	3562	48.14	47.6%
Boon D.C	Aus	190	20	7422	43.66	122	10	4186	37.38	56.4%	68	10	3236	55.79	43.6%
Kirsten G	Saf	176	15	7289	45.27	109	9	4201	42.01	57.6%	67	6	3088	50.62	42.4%
Hammond W.R	Eng	140	16	7249	58.46	27	1	887	34.12	12.2%	113	15	6362	64.92	87.8%
Ganguly S.C	Ind	188	17	7212	42.18	106	8	3264	33.31	45.3%	82	9	3948	54.08	54.7%
Fleming S.P	Nzl	189	10	7172	40.07	146	8	5334	38.65	74.4%	43	2	1838	44.83	25.6%
Chappell G.S	Aus	151	19	7110	53.86	118	14	5177	49.78	72.8%	33	5	1933	69.04	27.2%
Bradman D.G	Aus	80	10	6996	99.94	38	4	3085	90.74	44.1%	42	6	3911	108.64	55.9%
Jayasuriya S.T	Slk	188	14	6973	40.07	110	4	3867	36.48	55.5%	78	10	3106	45.68	44.5%
Flower A	Zim	112	19	4794	51.55	78	13	3191	49.09	66.6%	34	6	1603	57.25	33.4%

The batsmen to note are the ones who have averaged over 50% in the A group. Not many in this selected list of 40. Tendulkar., Lara, Sangakkara, Richards, Sobers, Bradman, Chappell and Andy Flower (nearly there). Hutton also gets in.

The other factor to look at is the % of runs scored in the A group. Lara, Border, Chanderpaul and a host of English batsmen led by Gooch belong to the list of batsmen who have over 60%.

I started this odyssey about 9 months back. I have had nearly ten articles on the same. The Readers' response has been fantastic. We have kept on improving and I am quite happy with what we have achieved finally. There will obviously be differing views. That is fine. But I am certain that the journey covering this complex area over the past 9 months has been truly worthwhile. I myself have learnt a lot. I am sure the same would apply to most readers. I think I can confidently say that we, as a team, have done justice to the batsmen who faced the twin formidable adversaries, bowlers and pitch conditions, very effectively. Now I will switch to analysing the bowlers.

To download/view the document containing the Innings values of BPI, PTI and BQI, please click/right-click here.

To download/view the revised table containing the A & B group values for all 263 batsmen please click/right-click here.

Arjum Hemnani's request: To download/view the revised table containing the 9 group values for all 263 batsmen please click/right-click here.