THE CORDON HOME

BLOGS ARCHIVES
SELECT BLOG
August 31, 2013

Ball-by-ball analysis of performances in the Ashes

Ashes 2013: battles within the war

Anantha Narayanan
Ryan Harris dominated Joe Root, dismissing him four times at the cost of only 38 runs  © Getty Images
Enlarge

This is the first attempt at a new type of analysis. I have done an analysis of the head-to-head confrontations during a specific series: the 2013 Ashes, to start with. Since this is a venture into uncharted seas, we will improve as we go along. I will make this a regular practice before important series, the ones coming to my mind now are the Ashes series in Australia later this year and the South Africa - India series around the same time.

There are no preambles to this analysis. There are no cut-offs and every single ball bowled is covered. The uploaded Excel sheet covers every single combination. In the main article I have selected four bowlers and six batsmen from each team and developed the tables. Otherwise the article will become too long.

The players selected are given below. The reasons are obvious. The best bowlers and the top-order batsmen, barring a minor variation make the cut.

Australia
Bowlers: Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc
and Nathan Lyon. Batsmen: Chris Rogers, David Warner, Shane Watson,
Michael Clarke, Steven Smith and Brad Haddin
(for want of a suitable batsman).
England Bowlers: Graeme Swann, James Anderson, Stuart Broad
and Tim Bresnan. Batsman: Alastair Cook, Joe Root, Jonathan Trott,
Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell and Jonny Bairstow.

Kindly note that there are no exclusions. If you are going to lose sleep if you did not know how Bairstow faced up to Ashton Agar or Simon Kerrigan bowled to Watson, please refer to the Excel chart.

Let us move on to the tables now.

1. The best Australian bowler has to be Harris, with no one else coming close. Even leaving aside 24 wickets at sub-20 average in four Tests, look at how Harris has performed against the English top order. He has done very well against Cook (three wkts at 24), dominated Root (four wkts at 9.5) and Trott (four wkts at 12) and performed very competently against Pietersen, Bell and Bairstow (five wickets at below-30). Sixteen of his 24 wickets are those of top-order batsmen. For once we can say with certainty, based on these macro-level figures that Harris was the bowler of the series.

2. Siddle has been less dominating. Root and Trott have played quite well, with averages exceeding 40. Cook and Pietersen have, to an extent, been taken care of by Siddle. However look at Bell. He has totally and overwhelmingly dominated Siddle. No wicket conceded in 239 balls. It is also relevant that only nine of Siddle's 17 wickets are those of top-order batsmen.

3. Mitchell Starc has done well against Trott and Bairstow. The other batsmen have all played him very well. However, it must be acknowledged that nine of his 11 wickets are those of these top-order batsmen.

4. Root and Bairstow struggled against Lyon. No one else did. But Lyon had to his credit only two lower-order wickets.

Australian Bowlers
CookRootTrottPietersenBellBairstow
BowlerWktsBallsRunsWkts/Balls/RunsWkts/Balls/RunsWkts/Balls/RunsWkts/Balls/RunsWkts/Balls/RunsWkts/Balls/Runs
BatSRBowAvgBatSR/BowAvgBatSR/BowAvgBatSR/BowAvgBatSR/BowAvgBatSR/BowAvgBatSR/BowAvg
Harris249804643 / 168 / 714 / 141 / 384 / 82 / 482 / 102 / 512 / 158 / 561 / 77 / 29
47.319.342.3 / 23.727.0 / 9.558.5 / 12.050.0 / 25.535.4 / 28.037.7 / 29.0
Siddle1711445221 / 117 / 202 / 168 / 872 / 135 / 853 / 134 / 641 / 239 / 1170 / 85 / 18
45.630.717.1 / 20.051.8 / 43.563.0 / 42.547.8 / 21.349.0 / 117.021.2 / 0.0
Starc117253441 / 109 / 421 / 108 / 322 / 51 / 212 / 163 / 781 / 136 / 782 / 45 / 20
47.431.338.5 / 42.029.6 / 32.041.2 / 10.547.9 / 39.057.4 / 78.044.4 / 10.0
Lyon97093030 / 79 / 361 / 42 / 111 / 93 / 382 / 124 / 841 / 125 / 452 / 70 / 33
42.733.745.6 / 0.026.2 / 11.040.9 / 38.067.7 / 42.036.0 / 45.047.1 / 16.5

English Bowlers
RogersWarnerWatsonClarkeSmithHaddin
BowlerWktsBallsRunsWkts/Balls/RunsWkts/Balls/RunsWkts/Balls/RunsWkts/Balls/RunsWkts/Balls/RunsWkts/Balls/Runs
BatSRBowAvgBatSR/BowAvgBatSR/BowAvgBatSR/BowAvgBatSR/BowAvgBatSR/BowAvgBatSR/BowAvg
Swann2614947556 / 230 / 791 / 68 / 381 / 138 / 810 / 251 / 1473 / 153 / 924 / 149 / 80
50.529.034.3 / 13.255.9 / 38.058.7 / 81.058.6 / 0.060.1 / 30.753.7 / 20.0
Anderson2212356472 / 240 / 1052 / 59 / 331 / 179 / 1262 / 120 / 671 / 170 / 892 / 138 / 56
52.429.443.8 / 52.555.9 / 16.570.4 / 126.055.8 / 33.552.4 / 89.040.6 / 28.0
Broad2211225951 / 220 / 1041 / 65 / 493 / 146 / 745 / 161 / 842 / 122 / 452 / 64 / 24
53.027.047.3 / 104.075.4 / 49.050.7 / 24.752.2 / 16.836.9 / 22.537.5 / 12.0
Bresnan105472900 / 90 / 632 / 34 / 184 / 88 / 460 / 94 / 652 / 85 / 240 / 28 / 18
53.029.070.0 / 0.052.9 / 9.052.3 / 11.569.1 / 0.028.2 / 12.064.3 / 0.0

1. Despite Swann's 26 wickets, this was a mixed series for him. He totally dominated Rogers (6 wkts at 13) and Haddin (four wickets at 20). However, Clarke had the total measure of Swann. Somewhat similar to Bell's handling of Siddle. No wicket in 251 balls at an excellent scoring rate. Whatever one can say, it must be agreed that Clarke has enhanced his reputation as the best player of spin in the world. Swann dismissed 15 top-order batsmen.

2. Anderson had a mixed series also. Only ten top-order wickets. Domination of Warner was off-set by the way Watson performed brilliantly and aggressively against Anderson. Smith also played very well against Anderson. On the true Australian pitches, it is possible that Anderson might struggle. Anderson started brilliantly at Trent Bridge but then fell off.

3. Broad's mastery over Clarke must have one of the major reasons for England's success: five wickets at 17. Broad was also very good against the other top-order batsmen, barring Rogers, who had the complete measure of him (one wicket at 104). However, it can be said that Broad had a better series than Anderson. His Durham spells will go into the Ashes legends.

4. Bresnan performed better than expected. Ten wickets in three Tests, out of which eight were top-order ones, speak quite highly of his performances. He totally dominated Warner, Watson and Smith. All these wickets were captured at sub-12 averages. His breakthroughs were timely and crucial.

Australian Batsmen
<<<<Swann>>>><<<<Anderson>>>><<<<Broad>>>><<<<Bresnan>>>>
RunsBallsWktsRunsBallsWktsRunsBallsWktsRunsBallsWktsRunsBallsWkts
BatSRBatAvgBatSRBatAvgBatSRBatAvgBatSRBatAvgBatSRBatAvg
Rogers36781997923061052402104220163900
44.840.834.313.243.852.547.3104.070.00.0
Warner138226638681335924965118342
61.123.055.938.055.916.575.449.052.99.0
Watson41865010811381126179174146346884
64.341.858.781.070.4126.050.724.752.311.5
Clarke3816608147251067120284161565940
57.747.658.60.055.833.552.216.869.10.0
Smith345676892153389170145122224852
51.043.160.130.752.489.036.922.528.212.0
Haddin20641798014945613822464218280
49.422.953.720.040.628.037.512.064.30.0

1. Rogers was a revelation. Sheer guts and commitment and a burning desire not to fritter away the last chance provided motivated him. He had a horrid time against Swann but handled all other bowlers very competently. Scoring 367 runs at an average of 40+ in a comeback series is not something to be ignored. He should do equally well on familiar pitches back home a few months hence.

2. Barring against Broad, Warner was at sea against all other bowlers. He may get the nod at Brisbane, but not beyond.

3. Watson was a much-maligned batsman who performed much better than people gave him credit for. A big hundred, a fifty and quite a few starts were better than what many other Australian batsmen achieved. He handled Swann and Anderson very well, scoring quickly and not losing his wicket cheaply. He was outstanding against Anderson. However he struggled against Broad and surprisingly, Bresnan.

4. Clarke performed outstandingly well against Swann (0 wkt in 251 balls) and miserably against Broad (five wkts at 17). Two extremes, impossible to understand. He was competent against Anderson and did well against Bresnan. Overall a fair series.

5. Smith had his moments against Swann and did very well against Anderson. He was quite poor against Bresnan.

6. Broad troubled Haddin most but he was competent against the other bowlers, but who cares when one sets a world record. Nearly six dismissals per Test meant that the difficult-to-understand experiment with Wade was abandoned. Haddin would take his rightful place behind the stumps over the next year or two.

England Batsman
<<<<Harris>>>><<<<Siddle>>>><<<<Starc>>>><<<<Lyon>>>>
RunsBallsWktsRunsBallsWktsRunsBallsWktsRunsBallsWktsRunsBallsWkts
BatSRBatAvgBatSRBatAvgBatSRBatAvgBatSRBatAvgBatSRBatAvg
Cook27776110 71 168 3 20 117 1 42 109 1 36 79 0
(36.4)(27.7)(42.3)(23.7)(17.1)(20.0)(38.5)(42.0)(45.6)(0.0)
Root3398339 38 141 4 87 168 2 32 108 1 11 42 1
(40.7)(37.7)(27.0)(9.5)(51.8)(43.5)(29.6)(32.0)(26.2)(11.0)
Trott29354310 48 82 4 85 135 2 21 51 2 38 93 1
(54.0)(29.3)(58.5)(12.0)(63.0)(42.5)(41.2)(10.5)(40.9)(38.0)
Pietersen38871710 51 102 2 64 134 3 78 163 2 84 124 2
(54.1)(38.8)(50.0)(25.5)(47.8)(21.3)(47.9)(39.0)(67.7)(42.0)
Bell56211578 56 158 2 117 239 1 78 136 1 45 125 1
(48.6)(70.2)(35.4)(28.0)(49.0)(117.0)(57.4)(78.0)(36.0)(45.0)
Bairstow2035067 29 77 1 18 85 0 20 45 2 33 70 2
(40.1)(29.0)(37.7)(29.0)(21.2)(0.0)(44.4)(10.0)(47.1)(16.5)

1. Cook did not really have a satisfactory series. Not just the scarcity of runs but also the fact that he did not really master any bowler. He handled Starc and Lyon slightly better than the others.

2. Root struggled against Harris but handled the others relatively well. But one big innings defined his future career. He handled Siddle very well.

3. Trott had an average series, like Cook. He handled Siddle well but had a very difficult time against Harris and Starc.

4. Pietersen - what does one say? One excellent century and three contrasting fifties. The last fifty was the stuff of schoolboy fantasies. He almost carried England home. And one could also see how well his rehabilitation into the team has worked. Cook and Andy Flower must take a lot of credit for that. Only against Siddle did he struggle a bit. He attacked Lyon quite well but gave him enough respect in the first innings at The Oval. His contrasting methods of play makes him all the more dangerous.

5. Bell: ah! The name rings a very sweet tone now. A defining batting performance by a complete batsman who has realised that he is now the best English batsman and should not sell himself short. Three hundreds and two fifties are ample testimony to the way Bell played and was the backbone of English batting. He never really failed in any of the five Tests. There was no discernible weakness. He handled all bowlers very well. He attacked Starc but handled Lyon with a lot of respect. He was one of the few who played Harris very well. He also played two bowlers not featured here impeccably: Watson and James Pattinson. He faced 269 balls against them and did not lose his wicket.

6. Bairstow had an average series. His contributions were below-par and he never mastered any bowler. He might get the nod at Brisbane or be replaced by James Taylor. However the one thing in his favour is that he played a minimum of 50 balls in each of the seven innings he batted in. He never gave up his wicket easily.

Some of the contrasting and absorbing contests of the series. Readers might come in with more.

1. Phillip Hughes against Swann (76 balls/9 runs/2 wkts/4.5 avge) and Hughes against Anderson (45 balls/40 runs/0 wkt). What a contrast?

2. Clarke against Broad (161 balls/5 wkts) and Clarke against Swann (251 balls/0 wkt). One change from a Goliath to David, as the speed of delivery picked up.

3. The dismantling of the hapless Kerrigan by Watson: 35 runs in 25 balls.

4. The huge success of Root as a bowler: 96 balls/34 runs/3 wkts/11.33 avge.

5. James Faulkner's misdirected barbs against England - backed by a great last day: five wickets, a cameo of 22 and some great ODI bowling to arrest England's push for a win. One bad over then might have led to a Pietersen-inspired win.

6. Agar's excellent handling of Swann: 83 balls/43 runs/0 wkt.

7. Smith's success against Bell: he dismissed him twice in 26 balls.

8. Broad's cavalier treatment of Siddle: 42 runs in 41 balls. And of Harris: 38 runs in 32 balls.

9. The maximum balls for any head-to-head confrontation was Swann's 251 balls against Clarke.

10. Watson scored 71.4% of his runs against Anderson in boundaries. Similarly Pietersen scored 71.8% of his runs against Starc in boundaries. However Bell v Pattinson was the highest: 73.9%.

11. Both Watson and Bell despatched 12.3% of the balls received against Anderson and Pattinson to the boundaries. That is one in eight balls.

Now for the readers to locate such gems.

Let me conclude. The bowler of the series was Ryan Harris. Not just for the wickets but the way he dominated the top-order English batsmen. If Harris had played at Trent Bridge, Australia might have won or drawn the series. But I hear the cynic's whisper: "Okay, then he might not have finished the series". Swann follows Harris. The batsman of the series was Ian Bell. Again not just for the 562 runs but the way he played all bowlers with ease. Pietersen is next. The allrounder of the series was Brad Haddin. In addition to a world-record 29 dismissals, he also scored 206 runs. Broad follows close behind for his 22 wickets and 179 runs. My Man-of-the-Series award goes to Ian Bell.

I have created an Excel sheet with complete head-to-head details for all combinations. To download/view the document, please CLICK HERE.

Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems

RSS Feeds: Anantha Narayanan

Keywords: Stats

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Bonehead_maz on (September 3, 2013, 5:28 GMT)

@ Ananth "Despite Clarke's assertions to the contrary, let Australia prepare 5 pitches suited to their strengths. No one is going to complain. But my feeling is that there is a lack of depth in batting "

I'd most definitely complain ! (although not physically attack CA's headquarters like I would if Harris is picked for the ODI's in India lol). What we need to do is have 5 typical of venue Test surfaces.? SURELY ? (we got in this mess by hiding ?)
[[
A nonsensical 7xODIs + 2xT20s series in India. All because BCCI would get Rs.4500 million television revenue. I do not even know how many zeros are there in this silly amount. I hope Australia sends an 'A' team.
Ananth
: ]]

You're right about the batting (although I still hold hopes for Hughes and Kawajah - and have raps on Burns.) and it's probably simply because we don't have typical surfaces at our venues for the Sheffield Shield ? For same reason we have many good seamers (I rate Cutting, Hazelwood and Hilf - there's also something about Couter Nile and Sayers )and such a shortage of spinners. Perhaps our first class points system needs a tweak or two to discourage 2/3 day matches ?
[[
I also liked the competitive spirit of Faulkner.
Ananth
: ]]

Posted by Wefinishthis on (September 2, 2013, 23:12 GMT)

Great analysis, but there's something wrong if you're concluding that Haddin was the best all-rounder. Haddin was a disaster. His world-record number of dismissals was in SPITE of him, not because of him. He unforgivably dropped two critical catches (costing Aus the match) and only got that record because of bowlers like Harris. His batting average was under 23 runs/innings which is very poor - hardly all-rounder stuff. The reason the series went to England was mainly because of ridiculous luck with the weather. Had it rained in two of the three matches England did well in instead of the two matches that Australia were almost certainly going to win, it would have been 2-1 to Australia. Yes the umpiring did trend towards England as well, but it was mainly the incredible luck of the weather that saved them.
[[
These are numbers-based conclusions. Don't take these to heart. The only real contender is Broad whose batting average is 25, certainly not Kallis-esque. But let us agree that these two performed well in two facets of the game, that is all.
Ananth
: ]]

Posted by Bonehead_maz on (September 1, 2013, 0:42 GMT)

.../2

I suspect there's not much longer for Clarke. He looks VERY stiff trying to play short bowling - reminds me of Atherton's last couple of years.

Lyon is much better than almost all arm chair critics think. He's also improving.

Hughes and also Kawajah are not up to facing good off spinners on turning pitches ! They are otherwise pretty good players.

Smith IS a test player....... and shows no signs of not continuing to improve. My personal tip is he'll end up with averages like Aubrey Faulkner (no-one else in the picture)

Finally respect to Harris and Rogers. What can any of us say about Harris (except moan at all the matches he's missed). His performance this series so closely reflects Lindwall in 1953 in a losing cause, I can't think of a more appropriate compliment- he really is that good ! I met Chris Rogers when he was in nappies, his father (John) was at the time Captain Coach at UNSW where I played. I'd guess he's played more cricket in England, but scores in Aust too.
[[
For sheer determination, Harris and Rogers take the cake. I have rarely seen such an unexpected contribution by two players, almost written off.
Ananth
: ]]

Comments have now been closed for this article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Anantha Narayanan
Anantha spent the first half of his four-decade working career with corporates like IBM, Shaw Wallace, NCR, Sime Darby and the Spinneys group in IT-related positions. In the second half, he has worked on cricket simulation, ratings, data mining, analysis and writing, amongst other things. He was the creator of the Wisden 100 lists, released in 2001. He has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket, and worked extensively with Maruti Motors, Idea Cellular and Castrol on their performance ratings-related systems. He is an armchair connoisseur of most sports. His other passion is tennis, and he thinks Roger Federer is the greatest sportsman to have walked on earth.

All articles by this writer