February 8, 2013

Country-wise look at dismissals in Tests

A stats analysis to determine the distribution of Test wickets by team and host country
38

Pakistan's bowlers have generally dismissed more batsmen by the bowled and lbw route than other teams © Getty Images

This data-centric analysis is a follow-up to my previous article on Test Dismissals across the ages. It was clear from the beginning that a follow-up analysis by country would complete the analysis. The comments are minimal due to number of tables, and I expect the readers to come out with their own views.

Even within the country division, multiple analyses are possible. The first is "by country" from the batting point of view which analyses how batsmen from each country lost their wickets. The second one is "by country" but from the bowling/fielding point of view analysing how the wickets were captured. The final one is "by country" based on location of these Tests. Each one will offer some insights.

In view of the number of tables (18, to start with), I have restricted the third analysis, "by location" only to the three bowler-centric dismissals which are likely to be influenced by the type of pitches: Lbw, Bowled and Caught by wicketkeeper. The other three dismissals, viz., Ct by other fielders, Run outs and Stumped, relate less to the type of pitches and more to fielding. Yet we are left with 15 tables, each shown by dismissal type.

LBW dismissals

Lbw: Batsmen Out %187719201946196019701980199320002007All
 191419391959196919791992199920062012Tests
 
Australia6.029.8815.7010.7011.8614.5513.6116.0213.6712.23%
Bangladesh       18.6914.0916.82%
England6.5212.4512.0212.0013.8617.8115.1516.1618.6213.57%
India 15.5610.659.019.9515.4513.1914.7416.0813.04%
New Zealand 14.8512.6613.1911.1416.0717.1020.5717.7615.77%
Pakistan  10.8210.2311.1014.5018.0016.1020.8815.06%
South Africa6.7411.7914.2511.3211.9412.5016.6515.6016.7713.62%
Sri Lanka     14.5214.2314.7716.0314.88%
West Indies 15.1013.5913.0411.1217.5619.7619.7422.8416.98%
Zimbabwe     11.3620.2719.5821.3319.71%
Lbw: Dismissals %
Australia6.1811.5411.969.4012.1315.1217.8018.0814.9513.08%
Bangladesh       16.8319.5518.09%
England5.8512.5113.4811.779.6915.0314.3016.8618.6912.68%
India 16.2816.2113.3213.6915.3119.3019.6920.8917.04%
New Zealand 5.598.689.4612.8012.9815.5714.3615.2512.94%
Pakistan  12.868.9910.9820.7422.2918.5122.6618.36%
South Africa8.6714.0412.9814.4011.2515.6214.8713.1811.5812.92%
Sri Lanka     20.1114.0020.9623.2719.75%
West Indies 10.3412.3012.4412.4215.1511.8314.9412.4313.28%
Zimbabwe     3.0314.9815.9713.7915.03%
Lbw: In Country %
Australia5.7111.7113.948.5510.0012.9014.2215.1811.9811.37%
Bangladesh      13.3319.4717.4018.38%
England6.9911.0712.7112.3513.2516.9014.7317.4917.4113.67%
India 19.0013.6411.3913.3117.0119.8616.7320.3915.98%
New Zealand 8.1110.3810.8410.2714.6414.5517.5715.4613.70%
Pakistan  11.239.5611.9221.1123.3519.5411.7018.18%
South Africa6.7314.3212.6712.0511.5617.0515.3012.4113.0412.49%
Sri Lanka     15.4013.0119.0821.3117.86%
West Indies 14.1813.7714.7011.4214.3217.8216.7119.8815.41%
Zimbabwe     7.7915.2817.2518.8716.06%
U.A.E.       26.7232.0030.18%

New Zealand batsmen of the recent period of 2000-2006, have been out Lbw over 20% of all dismissals, a figure which is way above the rest of the periods. Maybe a sign of the struggles the Kiwis have faced in recent times. Pakistani batsmen over the most recent period have been out Lbw over 20%. And look at the post-Lara West Indians. They have been out Lbw over 22%. During recent times, Australian batsmen have been out Lbw only 13.6%.

Now for the bowling dismissals. Pakistan has been the leaders in this mode of dismissal during the recent few periods. They have exceeded 20% during three of the four periods and are well above the 20% mark. The influence of Imran, Akram, Younis, Saqlain, Akhtar et al, can be seen. During the past two periods Sri Lanka has also been comfortably above the 20% mark: a certain influence of Murali. Recently India have also been well above the 20% mark. Look at South Africa. Fairly low Lbw % during the past two periods. The recent drop in Australia's % of Lbw dismissals is noteworthy.

Pakistan stands out in the in-country Lbw dismissals. During two periods between 1980 and 1999, well over 20% of the dismissals in Pakistan were of this kind. I would give the major credit to the bowlers and a minor reason could be the often-referred-to situation of home umpires. India also came close to 20% during the 1990s. Sri Lankans, during the most recent period, part of it without Murali, have comfortably gone past 21%. Note the low Lbw dismissal % in Australia and South Africa during recent times.

Bowled dismissals

Bowled: Batsmen Out %187719201946196019701980199320002007All
 191419391959196919791992199920062012Tests
 
Australia33.5629.2325.5425.9121.2320.4117.2014.1016.9623.01%
Bangladesh       14.1416.4715.09%
England36.7526.6526.7424.3019.5920.7518.7817.4117.1123.85%
India 25.1931.3925.4022.2317.9817.2217.3217.7521.12%
New Zealand 32.6727.9726.1119.7616.9215.7017.4617.8920.09%
Pakistan  29.2227.1417.5017.0213.5613.9515.1817.61%
South Africa42.5935.2628.5024.4919.4025.0018.4419.5218.1826.08%
Sri Lanka     18.5215.6915.7215.7716.29%
West Indies 22.9228.0122.7823.1018.2615.2016.9015.3819.72%
Zimbabwe     25.0015.4516.3417.3316.29%
Bowled: Dismissals %
Australia37.7828.0428.0820.9517.8416.3815.7215.4816.3221.95%
Bangladesh       16.3518.4417.31%
England35.4730.6429.6325.9722.5317.5714.3916.2418.3624.54%
India 26.7421.8025.2019.4419.0216.7713.5917.6918.77%
New Zealand 30.0731.2726.4318.2819.8213.4415.0912.1118.82%
Pakistan  29.9232.7022.2621.8321.6720.2318.9822.46%>
South Africa36.1728.0923.5523.0022.5015.6219.5716.3815.4121.62%
Sri Lanka     15.3716.2917.0216.2216.39%
West Indies 21.7229.9025.3623.1321.2515.9218.0316.8021.43%
Zimbabwe     12.1213.2914.0727.5914.39%
Bowled: In Country %
Australia34.1225.3328.3121.1618.8716.4216.1015.0316.1521.57%
Bangladesh      13.3315.0718.1316.41%
England37.5731.2927.7425.9121.7120.4417.4517.1718.0224.38%
India 15.0026.4427.5020.6320.2317.2115.7323.0721.44%
New Zealand 35.6834.9927.2618.4618.5115.4316.7612.7719.87%
Pakistan  27.9728.9620.9819.8620.0515.8425.5320.93%
South Africa39.8031.5525.2217.1221.0918.1818.0616.1813.4022.88%
Sri Lanka     15.4017.0518.5215.4516.93%
West Indies 22.0127.8026.0423.2320.1615.6916.2913.6220.00%
Zimbabwe     19.489.3814.5224.5313.45%
U.A.E.       22.1418.8019.95%

The only batsmen dismissal figure over 20%, of the bowled variety, during recent times has been England during the 1980s. I cannot get a handle on this.

Look at the string of 20+ % values by Pakistani bowlers, barring a slight drop during the last period. I think this can again be attributed to the range of incisive fast bowlers Pakistan possessed.

Same thing is true of Pakistan, the country. Glad to note that these are direct bowler-centric dismissals. The only comparable number is by the West Indian bowlers during the 1980s. It is a surprise that the bowled dismissal figure is below 14% in South Africa.

Caught by Wicket-keeper

CtWk: Batsmen Out %187719201946196019701980199320002007All
 191419391959196919791992199920062012Tests
 
Australia9.8012.6312.8714.4316.6918.9521.0318.0417.3715.73%
Bangladesh       18.4617.8318.20%
England7.1810.2915.7517.7917.4718.6619.7820.7418.8115.82%
India 10.3712.6715.3617.9720.8814.0318.7617.3517.03%
New Zealand 7.9211.7214.4919.0218.5519.3018.3017.3716.95%
Pakistan  13.2015.2418.7817.7519.2017.8518.3917.62%
South Africa7.688.7213.6217.7023.8815.6220.5617.8318.0515.14%
Sri Lanka     19.5619.5918.8418.1319.01%
West Indies 9.3812.1715.7013.9016.2417.1616.3914.5715.04%
Zimbabwe     15.9116.1115.829.3315.62%
CtWk: Dismissals %
Australia7.059.0216.2018.4421.7119.9218.4220.0521.0616.81%
Bangladesh       18.7513.4116.28%
England9.4211.0411.5515.7516.3118.9223.1517.9614.8914.85%
India 9.3011.449.7611.2916.1815.2013.7616.6213.72%
New Zealand 10.4915.3817.2918.6519.1217.9219.3420.0318.28%
Pakistan  15.7510.9018.4016.0314.4517.9419.8316.52%
South Africa7.8610.3413.8218.8018.7531.2522.4121.6116.7517.17%
Sri Lanka     20.1112.6515.0012.5014.71%
West Indies 11.0313.2617.7516.4619.3922.8319.2820.7718.31%
Zimbabwe     18.1821.3118.2517.2419.52%
CtWk: In Country %
Australia8.4711.3813.7716.7920.8021.0420.6219.8720.3316.91%
Bangladesh      6.6716.4816.6716.32%
England8.2611.1313.5417.1318.1117.8422.5019.5717.4816.00%
India 12.0011.6012.0412.7414.8411.5515.3213.7313.18%
New Zealand 7.5711.9614.4519.5821.4421.1219.7522.1318.95%
Pakistan  16.0812.0215.2815.5614.3817.5719.1515.56%
South Africa7.968.5015.5922.4121.0922.7322.4322.0918.4517.01%
Sri Lanka     20.6014.7415.3414.3215.73%
West Indies 8.2112.2816.6114.0719.0918.6817.5417.7516.46%
Zimbabwe     16.8819.6217.1014.1517.89%
U.A.E.       13.7414.4014.17%

England during the years just after turn of the millennium, India during the 1980s and South Africa, immediately after their return are the only cases where a team has lost more than a fifth of the wickets to catches behind by the keeper. Of course I am aware that it has not been possible to separate the catches taken by slip fielders. In this regard, only Sri Lankans appear to have a slightly more pronounced weakness than others.

Now for the bowlers. The period 1993-99 has been the best period for bowlers in inducing edges to the wicket-keeper. England, South Africa and West Indies had 22-plus % figures for the keeper-catches during this period. South Africa continued with 21.6% during the next period. Look at Australia's figures of 21-plus % during the last period.

If anyone is asked which country would have had the highest % of keeper-catches, there would be quite a few answers, with England or New Zealand as candidates for the first amongst equals. Well, the figures seem to confirm this except that New Zealand is way ahead of the others with nearly 19%. And they have been consistent over the past 30 years. Australia also had similar figures over the same period. Indians, with their predominantly spin attacks, have been below 14% overall.

Run Out dismissals

Run Outs: Batsmen Out %187719201946196019701980199320002007All
 191419391959196919791992199920062012Tests
 
Australia4.844.583.414.613.953.583.343.773.083.94%
Bangladesh       2.223.062.56%
England3.493.192.223.473.322.272.552.432.652.84%
India 0.744.373.463.253.843.894.403.143.71%
New Zealand 3.473.283.002.233.333.603.472.703.15%
Pakistan  6.062.713.983.913.254.203.503.89%
South Africa3.233.074.126.174.484.692.793.302.823.50%
Sri Lanka     3.414.383.794.073.92%
West Indies 4.175.565.194.173.074.343.352.103.86%
Zimbabwe     2.273.824.412.674.02%
Run Outs: Dismissals %
Australia3.643.342.734.213.292.132.773.052.733.06%
Bangladesh       6.253.915.17%
England4.183.573.533.992.824.162.503.562.733.54%
India 2.334.635.014.913.313.263.052.143.63%
New Zealand 6.294.714.573.663.424.603.413.293.93%
Pakistan  4.202.453.563.412.993.533.263.35%
South Africa4.262.012.963.402.504.693.622.652.593.03%
Sri Lanka     3.614.713.774.264.07%
West Indies 6.215.203.503.743.053.563.673.013.72%
Zimbabwe     6.064.853.995.174.49%

Run Outs for the batting team reflects, in general, a lack of communication and not so athletic batsmen. It is no wonder that India and Pakistan are ranked high on this table with % of run outs in excess of 3.7% during the recent times. These days, Sri Lankans too have caught this bug.

High Run Outs dismissals % values indicate an above-average fielding ability. New Zealand, during the 1990s and England, during the 1980s are examples. However look at Bangladesh's figures. They have averaged 5.2%. It is probably due to the liberties which the batsmen of the opposing teams took as well as a surprisingly athletic ability of the young cricketing nation. Recently Sri Lanka has been quite good. India has the lowest figures amongst all teams, during recent years.

Stumping dismissals

Stumpings: Batsmen Out %187719201946196019701980199320002007All
 191419391959196919791992199920062012Tests
 
Australia3.271.832.552.551.681.951.632.191.952.21%
Bangladesh       2.222.552.35%
England3.594.032.641.741.700.761.551.801.232.18%
India 5.192.022.311.731.091.531.721.861.78%
New Zealand 5.454.381.311.490.601.500.961.801.70%
Pakistan  4.981.251.281.471.741.951.751.89%
South Africa3.104.423.881.232.991.562.010.981.412.41%
Sri Lanka     1.331.581.801.051.48%
West Indies 4.954.261.771.501.741.191.821.282.06%
Zimbabwe      1.001.692.671.41%
Stumpings: Dismissals %
Australia3.705.863.181.791.320.661.942.160.732.31%
Bangladesh       2.402.792.58%
England2.833.052.731.561.110.921.431.101.161.87%
India 1.166.133.033.132.601.692.182.332.86%
New Zealand 4.202.731.471.650.880.711.220.901.29%
Pakistan  3.152.182.082.732.482.391.982.44%
South Africa4.423.242.541.200.000.000.391.011.031.68%
Sri Lanka     1.333.632.684.123.02%
West Indies 2.412.971.811.110.400.731.090.821.22%
Zimbabwe     3.030.841.521.721.28%

Not so surprisingly, South African batsmen lead the stumpings wickets % with 2-plus value. What about New Zealand batsmen having a stumpings % below 1.00 during the 2000-06 period? Possibly due to fewer spinners travelling to New Zealand.

Look at the drop of stumpings % of Australian bowlers during the pre and post Warne-retirement periods. 2.16% dropped to 0.73%. Indians have been quite good. However the real high numbers rest with the Sri Lankan bowlers. 3.6% during the Murali reign and 4.12%, even after his retirement. The lowest figure is 0.4% by the pace-dominant West Indian bowling line-ups of the 1980s.

Caught by others

CtOth: Batsmen Out %187719201946196019701980199320002007All
 191419391959196919791992199920062012Tests
 
Australia40.9939.7137.8438.8642.3138.7641.8943.4345.9440.96%
Bangladesh       42.1743.8042.84%
England41.2541.1638.4639.4843.1437.8039.2639.6040.1739.97%
India 41.4836.6642.7341.1238.2248.3341.6343.1441.30%
New Zealand 33.6638.1240.7344.7342.4842.0038.0440.4140.80%
Pakistan  33.7741.1345.2343.4042.8444.2939.5642.22%
South Africa35.7134.7734.3837.8635.8237.5037.7741.3541.1037.74%
Sri Lanka     39.7041.6143.5643.6342.31%
West Indies 41.1534.2840.5143.9640.9140.7240.5041.6140.49%
Zimbabwe     45.4541.8640.6045.3341.49%
CtOth: Dismissals %
Australia40.3839.5036.3443.9642.1844.8142.5240.1043.1241.48%
Bangladesh       36.0639.9437.86%
England40.9036.9437.8139.9845.5142.2742.9042.4942.6841.00%
India 43.0236.7840.3744.5140.8140.5345.7338.9741.39%
New Zealand 42.6635.4838.5043.3341.0546.1144.7746.6442.74%
Pakistan  33.0740.8741.2532.4033.9535.0232.4434.82%
South Africa37.4841.8241.6137.6045.0032.8137.9644.3851.2942.38%
Sri Lanka     36.2446.1639.7338.3040.31%
West Indies 44.4832.9837.6840.2038.1642.4140.4844.2639.44%
Zimbabwe     54.5543.4644.6829.3143.63%

No great insights can be drawn from this amorphic collection of dismissals. The catch could be a diving effort in the first slip or a skier at long-off. Let me leave the readers to draw whatever insights they want to.

The only outlier is South Africa, which is the only country to exceed 50%. This, they did during the most recent period. Possibly many slip catches have been taken due to the presence of Steyn, Philander, Kallis et al in the bowling line-up. Look at the low values for Pakistan. Their bowlers believed in hitting the stumps, pads or toes.

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

  • Murray Archer on February 20, 2013, 21:45 GMT

    @ Ananth - yes he's been here almost all his life and I hadn't thought of the Portugal/WI connections.

    A quick look around cricket clubs over here though, shows that although EVERYONE in Australia was from immigrant stock some time or other (even when going back 40-60,000 years), first and second generation Aussies from cricket playing countries, far exceed in on field presence, those from non-cricket countries. Sub Continental Asians are common on the field here, yet it's still quite rare to see an East Asian, although representing a larger portion of the population.

    I just hope Moises is seen as a role model by someone else coming from a country with a non-cricket background. lol we need all the help we can get :)

    RE: the double Nelson...... the partnerships list of that match at Newlands makes for very interesting reading.

  • Murray Archer on February 20, 2013, 8:40 GMT

    Off topic.

    When I look at Pakistan's scorecard in recent Cape town test, I just can't help imagining all the feet off the ground in dressing rooms. (and of course David Sheppard)

    2 out on 111 in same innings lol had to happen sometime. [[ And losing the match. Maybe the result of the double-Nelson. Ananth: ]] Another interesting ? thing, is the imminent debut of probably ? the world's first Portuguese Test Cricketer. Congratulations Moises :). [[ Better off saying an Australian born in Portugal. Like Lisa Sthalekar is an Australian born in India. It is hust possible that there may be an odd Portugese-born player playing for, say, West Indies. Ananth: ]]

  • Craig Dengate on February 20, 2013, 7:50 GMT

    Craig It is a peculiar comment. I read the comment without any preconceptions whatsoever and to me it seemed that the writer was, in a funny way, praising the Aussie umpires. I interpreted this as "the Aussie umpires are not prone to raising their fingers for Lbws at the drop of a hat and are more conservative". How have you viewed this comment. How does this comment throw a negative light on the Aussie umpires. And one thing must be accepted. I have blasted someone for putting down Pakistan, not India. Ananth: ]]

    Mate, I agree with you. You have indeed smashed someone for being racist towards someone else.

    There is a chance I overreacted. At the end of the day, on Cric Info I read so many posts that are completely discriminatory, slash down right racist towards Australians, that I can't help to read it negatively.

    In this instance, I saw it as a simple case of - home umpires = not giving lbw's to help the home side's batsmen survive. [[ Craig, I agree with you. The balanced view component is no more than 25%. Most of the other views often are downright discriminatory/racist/parochial/biased/jingoistic. I pride on the fact that in this particlular blogspace the balanced view % is way above 50%. Thanks for the response, although it was late. Ananth: ]]

  • Jeff Grimshaw on February 19, 2013, 15:41 GMT

    @ Gerry_the_Merry - my take on the bowling % is that it had been consistently falling over time, from 30%+ in the early days, through the 20% range in the post war years and down again in the modern era. The drop may have been a bit bigger in the 93-99 period but not sure it was anything more than a continuation of the trend?

    That said, I do notice that there was a corresponding rise in Caught Wkt% in both 80-92 and 93-99 to go with the drop in bowled % - maybe teams, with the increased usgae of fast bowlers, started deliberately targeting the (in)famous "corridor of uncertainty?

    The other interesting thing to me is that Bowled % has started to rise again in the past 5-10 years - I personally believe that this is a by-product of the rise of T20 cricket and the associated rise in scoring rates (and risk taking) in test cricket.

    I think that T20, even in its short life, has had more of an impact on the dynamic of test cricket than ODIs have ever had. [[ ODIs to a less extent earlier, especially after 1995 and T20s over the past 5 years. Ananth: ]]

  • Gerry_the_Merry on February 19, 2013, 12:11 GMT

    @Jeff Grimshaw - Excellent. I agree that this is perhaps the strongest reason. NZ had Hadlee changing gears around 1980 to become a stock+strike bowler, Australia very tough to figure out as they were less of a powerhouse in this period compared to previous, Pak/WI were several levels higher, India lost all their spinners, England also lost Underwood/Pocock/Titmus etc. and no one replaced them. One more could be pitches becoming a bit slower during this period and perhaps fewer balls going over the stumps.

    Any thoughts on why the bowled % has dropped sharply from 1980-92 to 1993-99 period, again in and for all countries? The latter period saw a sharp jump in fast bowling stocks everywhere, except India... [[ Jeff has been an excellent long-standing contributor. Unfortunately, I may be wrong, his work pressures have prevented him from taking a more active part nowadays. I have mentioned possible ODI influence. Let me see what Jeff comes out with. Ananth: ]]

  • Jeff Grimshaw on February 18, 2013, 14:36 GMT

    @ Gerry_the_Merry

    I think the big jump in % of LBWs in 1980-92 is primarily due to the increase in prevalence of pace bowlers over spin bowlers in that period.

    If you look at the Statsguru figures, then pace bowlers (as defined by Statsguru) sent down 52% of all deliveries in the 1877-1914 period, 48% from 1920-39, 46% from 1946-59, 48% from 1960-69 and 54% from 1970-79. Pretty consistently about half of all deliveries.

    This figure then jumps massively to 66% in the 1980-92 period before settling back down to 60-63% ever since.

    All countries saw an increase in pace bowling in the 1980-92 period - Australia increased from 53% pre-1980 to 70% between 80-92, England rose from 52% to 68%, NZ from 60% to 74%, WI from 42% to 84%. Even India rose from 27% to 45%. Pakistan saw the smallest increase, from 51% to 57%.

    Given the difficulty in spinners getting LBWs pre-DRS, I think this is strong evidence of what caused teh LBW% to increase.

  • Gerry_the_Merry on February 18, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    1) Something happened in 1980-92 period in LBWs - Compared to previous period, it has gone up for every country as % of dismissals or batsmen out, it has gone up in every country.

    2) Similarly, but not so dramatically consistent, is bowled in 1993-99, again compared to the previous period. The variations are big, and within batsmen out, dismissals and countries.

    Am ignoring South Africa since they played few tests between 1970 and 1992, the exact period of their exclusion, and which spans the 2 periods in this analysis relevant to the two comparisons above.

    Cant figure out what rule changed in each case... [[ Can the increase in Bowled be related to the demands of the ODI game. You might remember that it was during 1992 that the ODI scoring patterns began to change. Lbws: Maybe the umpires started being a bit more freer with their decisions. Also the bowler quality. Ananth: ]]

  • Murray Archer on February 17, 2013, 3:25 GMT

    @ Dale - I agree with you 100% ! Also, as Ananth does, I miss flight specifically angling for stumpings. (I feel these days it's mostly angling for mishit outfield catches ?_

    I also of course, think wicket keeping standards have diminished, as that position's batting became more of an issue. Brilliance is more often needed in a stumping than a catch ? [[ I may be wrong but I feel many of the modern stumpings are due to over-balancing than being drawn out. And most of these are third umpire decisions. That means these would not have been given in olden days. No umpire would have given a 1" outside the crease decision. So we are looking at possibly more stumping dismissals in olden days, if technology had been available. Ananth: ]]

  • Hussain on February 16, 2013, 15:56 GMT

    yeah... i utterly agree with mohsin khan Pakistani bowlers seem pretty good with their bowling. Two or three months ago, Pakistan cricketers did their job as well against India especially bowling great...

  • Saif on February 16, 2013, 15:04 GMT

    Hi Ananth, this comment is completely off-topic. I was wondering if you have ever done (or thought of doing) an analysis of the most 'high-quality encounters'. In my opinion, one measure of a high-quality encounter is the difference between the batsmen's averages and the opposition bowlers'. So, an innings in which batsmen with 50+ averages take on bowlers with sub-25 averages would be mouth-watering, while if the numbers were the other way round the quality of the encounter would be much poorer (incidentally, most matches figuring India in the last few years have featured these situations in alternate innings, at least to some extent). I would guess any recent India vs SA series would have had huge differences in batsmen-bowler averages when India was batting. [[ Let me look at it to see what is possible. Ananth: ]]

  • Murray Archer on February 20, 2013, 21:45 GMT

    @ Ananth - yes he's been here almost all his life and I hadn't thought of the Portugal/WI connections.

    A quick look around cricket clubs over here though, shows that although EVERYONE in Australia was from immigrant stock some time or other (even when going back 40-60,000 years), first and second generation Aussies from cricket playing countries, far exceed in on field presence, those from non-cricket countries. Sub Continental Asians are common on the field here, yet it's still quite rare to see an East Asian, although representing a larger portion of the population.

    I just hope Moises is seen as a role model by someone else coming from a country with a non-cricket background. lol we need all the help we can get :)

    RE: the double Nelson...... the partnerships list of that match at Newlands makes for very interesting reading.

  • Murray Archer on February 20, 2013, 8:40 GMT

    Off topic.

    When I look at Pakistan's scorecard in recent Cape town test, I just can't help imagining all the feet off the ground in dressing rooms. (and of course David Sheppard)

    2 out on 111 in same innings lol had to happen sometime. [[ And losing the match. Maybe the result of the double-Nelson. Ananth: ]] Another interesting ? thing, is the imminent debut of probably ? the world's first Portuguese Test Cricketer. Congratulations Moises :). [[ Better off saying an Australian born in Portugal. Like Lisa Sthalekar is an Australian born in India. It is hust possible that there may be an odd Portugese-born player playing for, say, West Indies. Ananth: ]]

  • Craig Dengate on February 20, 2013, 7:50 GMT

    Craig It is a peculiar comment. I read the comment without any preconceptions whatsoever and to me it seemed that the writer was, in a funny way, praising the Aussie umpires. I interpreted this as "the Aussie umpires are not prone to raising their fingers for Lbws at the drop of a hat and are more conservative". How have you viewed this comment. How does this comment throw a negative light on the Aussie umpires. And one thing must be accepted. I have blasted someone for putting down Pakistan, not India. Ananth: ]]

    Mate, I agree with you. You have indeed smashed someone for being racist towards someone else.

    There is a chance I overreacted. At the end of the day, on Cric Info I read so many posts that are completely discriminatory, slash down right racist towards Australians, that I can't help to read it negatively.

    In this instance, I saw it as a simple case of - home umpires = not giving lbw's to help the home side's batsmen survive. [[ Craig, I agree with you. The balanced view component is no more than 25%. Most of the other views often are downright discriminatory/racist/parochial/biased/jingoistic. I pride on the fact that in this particlular blogspace the balanced view % is way above 50%. Thanks for the response, although it was late. Ananth: ]]

  • Jeff Grimshaw on February 19, 2013, 15:41 GMT

    @ Gerry_the_Merry - my take on the bowling % is that it had been consistently falling over time, from 30%+ in the early days, through the 20% range in the post war years and down again in the modern era. The drop may have been a bit bigger in the 93-99 period but not sure it was anything more than a continuation of the trend?

    That said, I do notice that there was a corresponding rise in Caught Wkt% in both 80-92 and 93-99 to go with the drop in bowled % - maybe teams, with the increased usgae of fast bowlers, started deliberately targeting the (in)famous "corridor of uncertainty?

    The other interesting thing to me is that Bowled % has started to rise again in the past 5-10 years - I personally believe that this is a by-product of the rise of T20 cricket and the associated rise in scoring rates (and risk taking) in test cricket.

    I think that T20, even in its short life, has had more of an impact on the dynamic of test cricket than ODIs have ever had. [[ ODIs to a less extent earlier, especially after 1995 and T20s over the past 5 years. Ananth: ]]

  • Gerry_the_Merry on February 19, 2013, 12:11 GMT

    @Jeff Grimshaw - Excellent. I agree that this is perhaps the strongest reason. NZ had Hadlee changing gears around 1980 to become a stock+strike bowler, Australia very tough to figure out as they were less of a powerhouse in this period compared to previous, Pak/WI were several levels higher, India lost all their spinners, England also lost Underwood/Pocock/Titmus etc. and no one replaced them. One more could be pitches becoming a bit slower during this period and perhaps fewer balls going over the stumps.

    Any thoughts on why the bowled % has dropped sharply from 1980-92 to 1993-99 period, again in and for all countries? The latter period saw a sharp jump in fast bowling stocks everywhere, except India... [[ Jeff has been an excellent long-standing contributor. Unfortunately, I may be wrong, his work pressures have prevented him from taking a more active part nowadays. I have mentioned possible ODI influence. Let me see what Jeff comes out with. Ananth: ]]

  • Jeff Grimshaw on February 18, 2013, 14:36 GMT

    @ Gerry_the_Merry

    I think the big jump in % of LBWs in 1980-92 is primarily due to the increase in prevalence of pace bowlers over spin bowlers in that period.

    If you look at the Statsguru figures, then pace bowlers (as defined by Statsguru) sent down 52% of all deliveries in the 1877-1914 period, 48% from 1920-39, 46% from 1946-59, 48% from 1960-69 and 54% from 1970-79. Pretty consistently about half of all deliveries.

    This figure then jumps massively to 66% in the 1980-92 period before settling back down to 60-63% ever since.

    All countries saw an increase in pace bowling in the 1980-92 period - Australia increased from 53% pre-1980 to 70% between 80-92, England rose from 52% to 68%, NZ from 60% to 74%, WI from 42% to 84%. Even India rose from 27% to 45%. Pakistan saw the smallest increase, from 51% to 57%.

    Given the difficulty in spinners getting LBWs pre-DRS, I think this is strong evidence of what caused teh LBW% to increase.

  • Gerry_the_Merry on February 18, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    1) Something happened in 1980-92 period in LBWs - Compared to previous period, it has gone up for every country as % of dismissals or batsmen out, it has gone up in every country.

    2) Similarly, but not so dramatically consistent, is bowled in 1993-99, again compared to the previous period. The variations are big, and within batsmen out, dismissals and countries.

    Am ignoring South Africa since they played few tests between 1970 and 1992, the exact period of their exclusion, and which spans the 2 periods in this analysis relevant to the two comparisons above.

    Cant figure out what rule changed in each case... [[ Can the increase in Bowled be related to the demands of the ODI game. You might remember that it was during 1992 that the ODI scoring patterns began to change. Lbws: Maybe the umpires started being a bit more freer with their decisions. Also the bowler quality. Ananth: ]]

  • Murray Archer on February 17, 2013, 3:25 GMT

    @ Dale - I agree with you 100% ! Also, as Ananth does, I miss flight specifically angling for stumpings. (I feel these days it's mostly angling for mishit outfield catches ?_

    I also of course, think wicket keeping standards have diminished, as that position's batting became more of an issue. Brilliance is more often needed in a stumping than a catch ? [[ I may be wrong but I feel many of the modern stumpings are due to over-balancing than being drawn out. And most of these are third umpire decisions. That means these would not have been given in olden days. No umpire would have given a 1" outside the crease decision. So we are looking at possibly more stumping dismissals in olden days, if technology had been available. Ananth: ]]

  • Hussain on February 16, 2013, 15:56 GMT

    yeah... i utterly agree with mohsin khan Pakistani bowlers seem pretty good with their bowling. Two or three months ago, Pakistan cricketers did their job as well against India especially bowling great...

  • Saif on February 16, 2013, 15:04 GMT

    Hi Ananth, this comment is completely off-topic. I was wondering if you have ever done (or thought of doing) an analysis of the most 'high-quality encounters'. In my opinion, one measure of a high-quality encounter is the difference between the batsmen's averages and the opposition bowlers'. So, an innings in which batsmen with 50+ averages take on bowlers with sub-25 averages would be mouth-watering, while if the numbers were the other way round the quality of the encounter would be much poorer (incidentally, most matches figuring India in the last few years have featured these situations in alternate innings, at least to some extent). I would guess any recent India vs SA series would have had huge differences in batsmen-bowler averages when India was batting. [[ Let me look at it to see what is possible. Ananth: ]]

  • dale on February 15, 2013, 17:24 GMT

    In regards to India's 6.13% stumping dismissals 46-59: As Ananth correctly pointed out there were primarily three 'keepers involved. Tamhane: 16 dismissals with Gupte featuring in 9 - (Mankad 4) Sen: 11 dismissals with Mankad involved in 8 (5 in one match) Joshi: 8 dismissals with Gupte the partner in 5

    Here we see some evidence that Gupte especially, and Mankad to a lesser extent, is perhaps a master of drawing the batsman forward much like Grimmett. [[ All masters of flight. And later Bedi also. What a contrast to the totally different methods adopted by spinners today. The spell of Ajmal yesterday was a riveting and mesmerising one but was based on totally different methods. Equally. or even more, effective. Ananth: ]]

  • dale on February 15, 2013, 0:25 GMT

    @ Murray - Yes, Oldfield's record is extraordinary. However it should be noted that 28 of Oldfield's 52 stumpings were off the bowling of Grimmett. The 28 victims represent almost 13% of Grimmett's wickets. (Mailey also accounted for 7 of the victims).

  • Kamran Wasti on February 13, 2013, 8:36 GMT

    I would be very interested to know the trends in bowled and LBW dismissals right after the World War II particularly in England. Staying away from cricket for long affected the techniques of the batsmen adversely and from what I have read, my conclusion is that these two should be significantly higher in the immediate years that followed the war. A lot of successful bowlers who emerged after the war were inswing bowlers or off-spinners. Just a hypothesis. Can you test it for the null? :-) [[ Kamran The information is available in this article itself. If you see the Lbw and Bowled tables, the third one in each is the "in country" table, organized by period. Ananth: ]]

  • imran on February 12, 2013, 10:18 GMT

    very useful information. good work

  • Murray Archer on February 11, 2013, 12:50 GMT

    @ Pawan Mathur

    Yes Oldfield's stumpings are extraordinary numbers :). So are India's combined keepers 6.13% of dismissals 1946 - 1959.

    From an aussie point of view with stumpings , I also noticed our 0.66 percent of wickets taken 1980-1992. There's some amazing information in these tables :)

  • Dr. talha on February 11, 2013, 9:11 GMT

    There are a number of reasons for high LBWs in the past 2 decades. Great fast bowlers targeting the stumps, use of Doosra, Warne's flippers & change in umpiring mindset.

    Umpires in the past 10 yrs are ready to give LBWs on straight deliveries from spinners. Especially left arm spinners. With a left arm spinner playing for almost every team, such decisions will continue to take place.

    Ind - Ojha Pak - A Rehman Eng - Monty SRL - Herath SAF - Peterson (before him it was P Harris) Aus - Doherty (in the touring squad to Ind) NZL - Vettori

  • Dr. talha on February 11, 2013, 8:10 GMT

    Firstly i believe we should understand that a poor umpire will not only give more LBW but he will also support the home team when they are batting. For e.g Miandad was out LBW atleast twice in 1988 against Aus, before he got to 200.

    Secondly i fail to understand why do we only bring in LBW when we talk about poor umpiring. What about WK catch, stump & most importantly, as i mentioned in the last blog, bat & pad catches.

    Teams having more spinners like, Pak in 1980's, really benefited from poor bat & pad umpiring decisions.

    I remember Dean Jones was out Bat & Pad to Tauseef at adelaide in 1990. And can never forget on 2000 Pak tour to WI, Pak needed 1 wkt to win the series & umpire gave Walsh not-out(bat & pad). WI went on to win the test as well as the series(1-0).

    Cont..

  • Pawan Mathur on February 10, 2013, 21:40 GMT

    @Murray Archer, I agree to your point.But when I saw the 5.86% figure and the corresponding time period, what immediately came to my mind was the still standing record of 52 stumpings of Oldfield,. in other entries, no immediate correlation can be gauged with the performance of a single player. Hence I commented on my observation

  • Shobhit on February 10, 2013, 17:54 GMT

    While it does not surprise me that South Africa had considerably high percentage of Caught Behind(WK) during 1993-2006, mainly on account of presence of Pollock and Donald, who particularly has one of the highest percentages of caught-by WK dismissals, I am somewhat amazed to find it sliding during the next six years. Reason behind my having been surprised is Dale Steyn: he has the most amazing caught WK dismissals percentage among the modern bowlers. Again, in the said period SA has the highest percentage of caught others: 51.29 it is second only to, incomprehensibly to me, Zimbawe during 1986-1992. I know it might be little naive but can not we attribute some of this success to the presence of Mark Boucher, Jacques Kallis, and Greame Smith standing behind the stumps dropping seldom anything coming their way.

  • Mohsin Khan on February 10, 2013, 10:13 GMT

    I think that Pakistani Bowlers always try to ball in line from their origin and still now ........ Don`t go very back . In their last series ( T20 + ODIs )against india they got 12 bowled out of total 40 wickets taken ( 30.00 % )

  • MUHAMMD TOUSEEF on February 10, 2013, 9:52 GMT

    nice work. anand how you get so much data. i am new reader. i would love to know how u get so much data and how you managed it

  • milpand on February 10, 2013, 8:43 GMT

    Some modes of dismissals are discovered, others invented. Dislodging the bails, hitting the ball straight to a fielder, straying from safe zone are discovered and no further explanation is necessary. Handling the ball (was it heading towards stump), obstructing the fielder (or protecting oneself) are ambiguous but infrequent. LBW, the common mode of invented dismissal is similar to tax avoidance(legal but immoral) vs tax evasion(illegal). New ways are found to avoid tax while the lawmakers play catch up. It was easier to fill column inches attributing every error to home bias. These days we can call an umpire incompetent but the post match dissection lacks the vitality, gusto, pizzazz, ardor, passion, zeal or verve.

  • Murray Archer on February 10, 2013, 2:48 GMT

    @ Pawan Mathur

    I agree to a point. I have no doubt Oldfield a genius. Where I disagree, is the team effort of shaping such numbers. O'Reilly, then Grimmett would have been pretty handy helping a keeper get stumped dismissals ?

    I actually love what you said, and for same reasons, I've been checking out Sen and Tamhane :).

  • Craig on February 10, 2013, 0:43 GMT

    Posted by: umar at February 8, 2013 1:42 PM australia's low lbw may also be because of home umpires

    Ananth, why is such a blatantly provocative statement such as this allowed on your page? Yet not much further down the line you blasted someone else for saying something negative about Pakistan? Is Australia bashing allowed? [[ Craig It is a peculiar comment. I read the comment without any preconceptions whatsoever and to me it seemed that the writer was, in a funny way, praising the Aussie umpires. I interpreted this as "the Aussie umpires are not prone to raising their fingers for Lbws at the drop of a hat and are more conservative". How have you viewed this comment. How does this comment throw a negative light on the Aussie umpires. And one thing must be accepted. I have blasted someone for putting down Pakistan, not India. Ananth: ]] If I said, perhaps the rather high percentage of LBWs in Asian countries is indicative of home umpires with trigger fingers, I would be called names and told I'm racist. Despite the fact there is plenty of evidence out there displaying umpires in those countries raising the finger before there has even been an appeal.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    BTW... I usually love your articles, despite not commenting. Normally you are right on the ball on comments such as these.

  • Pawan Mathur on February 9, 2013, 21:41 GMT

    From the table entry figures, I deduce that Bert Oldfiled is the only cricketer who can solely take the credit for a comparatively high values (5.86% of stumpings for Australia in the period which was exactly the same in which he played). Perhaps, I am not finding the right words to express my observations. What I mean to say is that of all the various table entries under various criteria, only the 5.86% of Australian stumping is such that is being shaped by the performance of a single cricketer. [[ A very good observation. I get the feeling that quite a few such deductions can be done with a careful look at the tables.

    Ananth: ]]

  • Matt h on February 9, 2013, 20:51 GMT

    To me the most important factor seems to be the pitches. Lower slower decks in Pakistan, West Indies lead to more LBW and bowled dismissals and encourage the development of bowlers who look for those dismissals. Low LBW's in Oz and SA reflect more bounce. For example hard to get LBW's in Perth. At the same time there are more caught dismissals because of the bounce and movement off the pitch. This in turn encourages bowlers to bowl for these dismissals - like McGraths constant 4th stump line. Not many LBW's out there. Finally, India's caught other % seems high, especially in the past. Might this be due to bat pad catches? India used to have specialist fielders who were great in this area.

  • Murray Archer on February 9, 2013, 20:37 GMT

    @ Ananth

    Thanks very much :). Asked a few quick questions in last couple of days and Tamhane is considered to have been an absolutely top draw 'keeper :).

    Looking back over that 1948 series with Sen keeping reminded me of Bill Browns dismissals by other means lol :).

  • dale on February 9, 2013, 16:35 GMT

    Re:LBW dismissals % - It is not surprising to see Pakistan bowlers dominating the LBW % charts since 1980. In addition to the well known exploits of Wasim,Waqar and - Imran (22%), the two leg spinners Abdul Qadir (22%) and Mushtaq Ahmed (21%) should be acknowledged. It is also significant that Ajmal is quite prominent at 34% while Rehman is at 29%. When we consider players like Abdul Razzaq, Aaqib Javed and Shabbir Ahmed taking over 23% of their relatively small amount of wickets by the LBW route it is reasonable to conclude that generally speaking the Pakistani bowlers are the most adept at trapping the batsmen LBW. [[ Yes, Pakistan has always possessed bowlers of various types who have found the pad successfully. Ananth: ]]

  • Enigma on February 9, 2013, 7:13 GMT

    Pakistani bowlers are overrated, how many last beyond couple of seasons. Does anyone remember rao iftikar, riaz, aaqib javed, sohail tanvir lol! Their batting of course is less than club class. Ananth you should be concerned that your excellent columns are being misused by Pakistani fans who are interested only in India bashing. [[ Thank you for your warning. I should be more concerned about the jingoistic flag-weaving Indian supporters who cannot take any negative comments on their players. In addition some of these supporters also exhibit a lack of crickeing knowledge. Pakistan has 12 batsmen who exceed 40.0 batting average. India has 13 batsmen who exceed 40.0 batting average. 16 Pakistani bowlers have captured 100 Test wickets. 17 Indian bowlers have captured 100 Test wickets. The top 5 Pakistani bowlers have captured 1646 wickets in 407 Tests at 4.04 wpt and at an average of 26.52. Three of these bowlers have averages below 23.63. The top 5 Indian bowlers have captured 2022 wickets in 517 Tests at 3.91 wpt and at an average of 30.45. The lowest average amongst these five is 28.71. Please verify your facts before coming out with sweeping statements. Any more comments on this line of reasoning from any team's supporters will be instantly trashed. Ananth: ]]

  • Murray Archer on February 9, 2013, 2:05 GMT

    A number that leaps out to me, is India's stumping wickets taken 1946 - 1959.

    That's incredibly high .... and yet can't immediately think of the bowlers and or keepers responsible ? ..... from those sort of numbers , certainly SHOULD be able to :(. [[ Subash Gupte, Mankad, Ghulam Ahmed, Patel, Nadkarni. Sen, Tamhane, Joshi. Not many matches though. Below 60. Ananth: ]]

  • Abhishek Mukherjee on February 8, 2013, 17:43 GMT

    A table that I would have liked to see is a split of the LBWs in every country by host/visiting teams. May tell a thing or two about the umpiring, especially before the neutral umpires came into being. [[ Too many tables. I could still do it and post the table. Let me see. Ananth: ]]

    Do note the high number of stumpings in the earlier days. Where have the cavaliers vanished?

    The Bangladeshis seem to have effected a lot of run outs. I guess this has more to do with poor bowling than with good fielding.

    What is it with UAE and LBWs?

    Great article, though.

  • gaurav rai on February 8, 2013, 16:02 GMT

    yes right but we have trio of 10000 plus in batting and many 7000plus where pakistan is a sorry fig. but all respact nd praise for wasim and waqar [[ Those 10000+ numbers are primarily because of the number of Test matches. And when you consider batting averages, India has 4 50+ (Sehwag could drop off this in the next innings) and Pakistan has three. Ananth: ]]

  • milpand on February 8, 2013, 16:02 GMT

    Bowling unit not relying on fielding side, athletic or otherwise. How about one combining lbw, c & b and bowled? [[ As I have mentioned in my response to Abhishek, too many tables. But it could easily be done and posted as a Bowler table. Ananth: ]]

  • cricket-india on February 8, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    confirms a long-held view of mine...pak hasn't had good slip fielders (perhaps inzy was ok), so the bowlers depended on bowling batsmen or getting them leg-before. that also meant more middle and leg-stump line bolwing leading to being taken for runs, but seems to have worked out well in the overall analysis for them.

  • charith on February 8, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    very nice work Ananth the data proves that SL has always being lucky with wicket keepers after seeing kusal and chandimal in australia the future looks bright too.

  • Murray Archer on February 8, 2013, 14:16 GMT

    The LBW's in UAE is just crazy stuff. ..... maybe not a big enough sample ? [[ Possible. Only 12 matches. Also maybe due to the fact that one of the teams has always been Pakistan and bowlers like Ajmal are very effective there. And in the match Pakistan lost badly to Australia there were 9 Lbw dismissals (out of 27). Ananth: ]]

  • umar on February 8, 2013, 13:42 GMT

    australia's low lbw may also be because of home umpires

  • Ahmed Hassan on February 8, 2013, 12:59 GMT

    Pakistan clearly not bad in bowling. Still funny how in a country of 1 billion plus India doesn't have decent quicks.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Ahmed Hassan on February 8, 2013, 12:59 GMT

    Pakistan clearly not bad in bowling. Still funny how in a country of 1 billion plus India doesn't have decent quicks.

  • umar on February 8, 2013, 13:42 GMT

    australia's low lbw may also be because of home umpires

  • Murray Archer on February 8, 2013, 14:16 GMT

    The LBW's in UAE is just crazy stuff. ..... maybe not a big enough sample ? [[ Possible. Only 12 matches. Also maybe due to the fact that one of the teams has always been Pakistan and bowlers like Ajmal are very effective there. And in the match Pakistan lost badly to Australia there were 9 Lbw dismissals (out of 27). Ananth: ]]

  • charith on February 8, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    very nice work Ananth the data proves that SL has always being lucky with wicket keepers after seeing kusal and chandimal in australia the future looks bright too.

  • cricket-india on February 8, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    confirms a long-held view of mine...pak hasn't had good slip fielders (perhaps inzy was ok), so the bowlers depended on bowling batsmen or getting them leg-before. that also meant more middle and leg-stump line bolwing leading to being taken for runs, but seems to have worked out well in the overall analysis for them.

  • milpand on February 8, 2013, 16:02 GMT

    Bowling unit not relying on fielding side, athletic or otherwise. How about one combining lbw, c & b and bowled? [[ As I have mentioned in my response to Abhishek, too many tables. But it could easily be done and posted as a Bowler table. Ananth: ]]

  • gaurav rai on February 8, 2013, 16:02 GMT

    yes right but we have trio of 10000 plus in batting and many 7000plus where pakistan is a sorry fig. but all respact nd praise for wasim and waqar [[ Those 10000+ numbers are primarily because of the number of Test matches. And when you consider batting averages, India has 4 50+ (Sehwag could drop off this in the next innings) and Pakistan has three. Ananth: ]]

  • Abhishek Mukherjee on February 8, 2013, 17:43 GMT

    A table that I would have liked to see is a split of the LBWs in every country by host/visiting teams. May tell a thing or two about the umpiring, especially before the neutral umpires came into being. [[ Too many tables. I could still do it and post the table. Let me see. Ananth: ]]

    Do note the high number of stumpings in the earlier days. Where have the cavaliers vanished?

    The Bangladeshis seem to have effected a lot of run outs. I guess this has more to do with poor bowling than with good fielding.

    What is it with UAE and LBWs?

    Great article, though.

  • Murray Archer on February 9, 2013, 2:05 GMT

    A number that leaps out to me, is India's stumping wickets taken 1946 - 1959.

    That's incredibly high .... and yet can't immediately think of the bowlers and or keepers responsible ? ..... from those sort of numbers , certainly SHOULD be able to :(. [[ Subash Gupte, Mankad, Ghulam Ahmed, Patel, Nadkarni. Sen, Tamhane, Joshi. Not many matches though. Below 60. Ananth: ]]

  • Enigma on February 9, 2013, 7:13 GMT

    Pakistani bowlers are overrated, how many last beyond couple of seasons. Does anyone remember rao iftikar, riaz, aaqib javed, sohail tanvir lol! Their batting of course is less than club class. Ananth you should be concerned that your excellent columns are being misused by Pakistani fans who are interested only in India bashing. [[ Thank you for your warning. I should be more concerned about the jingoistic flag-weaving Indian supporters who cannot take any negative comments on their players. In addition some of these supporters also exhibit a lack of crickeing knowledge. Pakistan has 12 batsmen who exceed 40.0 batting average. India has 13 batsmen who exceed 40.0 batting average. 16 Pakistani bowlers have captured 100 Test wickets. 17 Indian bowlers have captured 100 Test wickets. The top 5 Pakistani bowlers have captured 1646 wickets in 407 Tests at 4.04 wpt and at an average of 26.52. Three of these bowlers have averages below 23.63. The top 5 Indian bowlers have captured 2022 wickets in 517 Tests at 3.91 wpt and at an average of 30.45. The lowest average amongst these five is 28.71. Please verify your facts before coming out with sweeping statements. Any more comments on this line of reasoning from any team's supporters will be instantly trashed. Ananth: ]]