The most engaging head-to-head confrontations in Tests of yore October 26, 2013

First 125 years: two gladiators, 22 yards, five days

A look at the most interesting duels between a batsman and a bowler in Test cricket
18

Hanif Mohammad's 970-minute epic in Bridgetown may well be the only instance of a batsman facing 1000 balls in an innings in Tests
Hanif Mohammad's 970-minute epic in Bridgetown may well be the only instance of a batsman facing 1000 balls in an innings in Tests © PA Photos

In my last article, I had done a single-Test analysis of the head-to-head battles between bowler and batsman. This article covered about 550 matches from Test #1546 onwards where the complete ball-by-ball data is available.

The current article is a logical follow-up to that article and I will look at matches upto Test #1545. This covers 125 years of Test cricket. As such, I feel it is probably more important than the previous article. Some of the great confrontations ever took place during this long period.

Since no ball-by-ball data is available for these matches, this is really a pseudo-analysis of the head-to-head confrontations. However, the idea for this analysis originated from the previous one.

This analysis has been done using the single source available: the scorecard.

As astute readers would have guessed by now, the analysis is a tricky and involved one. Out of these 1545 Tests, we have data available for balls played by batsman for about 900 matches.

These represent interim levels of data. For the other 650 matches or so, we do not have the balls-played-by-batsman information. So I had to adopt different techniques to arrive at reasonable results.

For the 900 matches for which the balls-played-by-batsman information is available, I did a single extrapolation. Since I knew the balls played by each batsman, I needed to only allocate these balls between the bowlers who bowled in the innings based on the balls bowled by each of them. So this is a single extrapolation.

I had to be careful when I wanted to find out the runs scored off each bowler. This had to be a separate computation based on the runs conceded by the bowlers. This would ensure that the more accurate bowlers might bowl more balls at the batsmen but concede fewer runs.

I had to adopt a two-step algorithm for the 650 or so matches for which I had bare minimum information: only the runs scored. First I had to do an estimate of the balls played by each batsman by allocating the total innings balls based on a ratio of batsman runs and team runs.

Afterwards the allocation of balls and runs to the individual bowlers followed the method adopted earlier. These calculations are summarised below with couple of examples.

Two famous triple-centuries are used: Len Hutton's 364 in Test #266 for which the balls-played information is available (847) and Hanif Mohammad's 337 in Test #446 for which balls played information is not available, even though it is a later match.

I have avoided making any further assumptions such as batsman's batting position, bowler type, when the batsman started his innings and ended (anyhow this data is not available for these matches) et al.

"Keep it simple" has been my watchword.

Formula to determine the balls played by Batsman where not available
Batsman balls = Team balls * Batsman runs / (Sum of Batsman runs)
Hanif scored 337 out of 657 (Extras 33) in 319.0 overs.
    Balls faced by Hanif = (319x6) * 337 / (657-33) = 1034.

Common to both: Bowler allocation

Formula to determine the Batsman-Bowler balls Bat-Bow balls = Batsman balls * Bowler balls / (Sum of Bowler balls) Denis Atkinson to Hanif = 1034 * (62*6+0) / (319*6+0) = 201 (Atkinson's bowling analysis 62.0-35-61-1) Bill O'Reilly to Hutton = 847 * (85*6+0) / (335*6+2) = 215 (O'Reilly's bowling analysis 85.0-26-178-3)

Formula to determine the Batsman-Bowler runs Bat-Bow runs = Batsman runs * Bowler runs / (Sum of Bowler runs) Atkinson to Hanif = 337 * 61 / (657-33) = 33 (33 extras) O'Reilly to Hutton = 364 * 178 / (903-50) = 76 (50 extras)

Let us now move on to the tables.

Analysis for Innings: Single extrapolation (Batsman balldata available)
TestYearBatsmanRunsBallsBowlerExt B-B RunsExt B-B Balls
2661938L Hutton364847Fleetwood-Smith127220
2661938L Hutton364847WJ O'Reilly76215
8401979DW Randall150498JD Higgs69203
1931930A Sandham325640OC Scott104199
2661938L Hutton364847MG Waite64182
6181967G Boycott246555EAS Prasanna87179
2801946SG Barnes234667DVP Wright61177
2801946SG Barnes234667AV Bedser55177
15262000G Kirsten180461M Muralitharan56177
2561936WR Hammond231579FA Ward75172
1601925J Ryder201461R Kilner54169
2561936WR Hammond231579WJ O'Reilly49168
13741997ST Jayasuriya340578RK Chauhan105166
7321974DL Amiss262563AG Barrett58166
10901988DC Boon184431EE Hemmings63166
13741997RS Mahanama225561RK Chauhan69161
8991981JG Wright110434DR Doshi26161
11161989Javed Miandad271465SL Boock102160
6011966RM Cowper307589FJ Titmus50160

The featured table lists all situations where the bowler bowled more than 160 balls at a specific batsman. The downloadable table lists all instances with 120 balls as cut-off.

Hutton's 364 was a monumental innings. Wally Hammond was determined to grind Don Bradman and his team into the dust and batted for nearly three days. Hutton faced 847 balls - no extrapolation needed for this, and scored 364 runs. Bill O'Reilly and Chuck Fleetwood-Smith had contrasting spells. They had spells of 85-26-178-3 and 87-11-298-1 respectively. This wide disparity in runs conceded is reflected in the numbers. Hutton faced 215 balls against Fleetwood-Smith as against 203 against O'Reilly. However he scored many more runs off Fleetwood-Smith. This shows the advantage of separate extraction processes for balls and runs. This is the only instance of a batsman facing over 200 balls off two bowlers in an innings.

Derek Randall's presence in third position is a way-out situation since he scored only 150 runs. Coming in after a rare first-ball dismissal of Geoff Boycott, Randall batted for nearly ten hours and faced a whopping 498 balls. This, coupled with the fact that Jim Higgs bowled nearly 40% of the team overs, contributed to this unlikely combination, reaching to 199 balls.

An interesting presence in this table is that of Sanath Jayasuriya and Roshan Mahanama. In that mind-numbing "Test of patience" in 1997, Sri Lanka's mammoth 952 required 271 overs to be bowled. Rajesh Chauhan bowled most, with 78 overs, and Anil Kumble and Nilesh Kulkarni followed with 72 and 70 respectively. Chauhan features here twice, and the other two hapless bowlers feature in the longer list. Jayasuriya faced 166 balls off Chauhan and Mahanama, 161. These two faced 154, 149 balls off Kumble and 149 and 145 balls off Kulkarni. Ah! My hands get tired typing out these numbers. Paralysis of the mind could very well set in.

Analysis for Test: Single extrapolation (Batsman balldata available)
TestYearBatsmanRunsBallsBowlerExt B-B RunsExt B-B Balls
1791929WR Hammond296977CV Grimmett94265
1981930H Sutcliffe215565CV Grimmett79228
8991981JG Wright143628DR Doshi33223
2661938L Hutton364847Fleetwood-Smith127220
1931930A Sandham375702OC Scott129219
1591925H Sutcliffe303871JM Gregory86219
2661938L Hutton364847WJ O'Reilly76215
7381974G Boycott211725LR Gibbs65215
1791929WR Hammond296977RK Oxenham51210
1591925H Sutcliffe303871AA Mailey95207
15302001ME Trescothick179517M Muralitharan67206
1601925J Ryder289580R Kilner72205

The featured table covers Test confrontations of 200 balls and above.

Hammond scored 119 and 177 and played a total of 977 balls. A monumental effort indeed. Clarrie Grimmett bowled over 100 overs and Hammond played 265 balls of these. This was during Bradman's debut series.

Andy Sandham scored 375 runs in the nine-day Test in which there was no play on the last two days (yes, you read it right). It is amazing that the score stood at England: 849, West Indies: 286, and England batted again. Then they did not send the first-innings triple-centurion until the score was 176 for 5. Otherwise, Sandham might very well have upstaged Graham Gooch. Sandham faced 219 balls from Tommy Scott but more importantly scored 129 runs, the highest in all these matches.

Marcus Trescothick vs Muttiah Muralitharan just missed getting into the group of Tests with ball-by-ball data. It is noteworthy that Trescothick faced Muralitharan away for over 200 balls without giving his wicket once to Murali.

Analysis for Innings: Double extrapolation (No batsman ball data available)
TestYearBatsmanRunsExt Bat-BallsBowlerExt B-B RunsExt B-B Balls
4391957PBH May285811S Ramadhin94308
5641964KF Barrington256757TR Veivers67246
4501958GS Sobers365587Fazal Mahmood116241
3261950L Hutton202654AL Valentine73233
4391957PBH May285811DS Atkinson72226
5641964RB Simpson311749TW Cartwright58225
2261933WR Hammond336595FT Badcock80225
3711953FMM Worrell237523MH Mankad96208
6311968GT Dowling239567RG Nadkarni58201
4461958Hanif Mohammad3371034DS Atkinson33201

This table also features confrontations clocking at 200 balls and above.

First, let us not forget that this is a double extrapolation method. Peter May's 891 itself is a derived figure. This was a match in which May and Colin Cowdrey engineered one of the greatest comebacks in history. After two innings the scores stood at England: 186. West Indies: 474. Then England were tottering at 113 for 3. The amateur duo of May and Cowdrey came in and added 411 runs. Sonny Ramadhin bowled 98 overs in the innings which is a record even today. May faced 308 balls off Ramadhin, and that was some feat. It is the highest faced by a batsman off a bowler. Even allowing for a 10% variation, this is around 270 balls. Let us not forget that May, the captain, declared when he was 285, thus depriving himself of a triple-century. In the bargain West Indies scored 72 for 7 and narrowly escaped a defeat. Shades of New Zealand against India during 1965.

Ken Barrington's marathon effort of 256 runs translated to 757 balls and 246 balls off Tom Veivers. Not many runs were scored, though. Garry Sobers, in his record-breaking innings of 365, which transposed to only 587 balls, faced 241 balls off Fazal Mahmood. Hanif faced maximum balls from Denis Atkinson during his 16 hour epic of 337. This was extrapolated to 1034 balls, the only time in history of Test cricket that a batsman faced over 1000 or more balls in an innings, extrapolated or otherwise. There is a fair chance that this would be correct since Hanif was an eminently defensive batsman.

Analysis for Test: Double extrapolation (No batsman balldata)
TestYearBatsmanRunsExt bat-BallsBowlerExt B-B RunsExt B-B Balls
4391957PBH May315891S Ramadhin99340
3241950C Washbrook150679AL Valentine48264
3241950C Washbrook150679S Ramadhin57262
5211962Hanif Mohammad215733GAR Lock81258
3711953FMM Worrell260608MH Mankad104250
5641964KF Barrington256757TR Veivers67246
3771953GO Rabone175732HJ Tayfield47242
3261950L Hutton204663AL Valentine76241
4501958GS Sobers365587Fazal Mahmood116241
5641964RB Simpson315761TW Cartwright58227
2261933WR Hammond336595FT Badcock80225
6651969MG Burgess178628Intikhab Alam75224
4391957PBH May315891DS Atkinson73223
3371951EAB Rowan296836R Tattersall46223
3391951AJ Watkins177657MH Mankad36221
4461958Hanif Mohammad3541079OG Smith57221
3391951AJ Watkins177657SG Shinde83220
3371951EAB Rowan296836MJ Hilton93210
2891947B Mitchell309728R Howorth67203

The cut-off for this is also 200 balls.

May's figures were derived separately for each innings and added. Since he played a reasonable number of balls in the first innings, the total comes to 891 and May faced a mind-boggling tally of 340 balls off Ramadhin. This is by far the maximum number of balls faced by a batsman off a single bowler. Look at how far off this is from the Cyril Washbrook v Alf Valentine and Washbrook v Ramadhin numbers.

I am happy to see the presence of Allan Watkins' defensive classic during England's tour of India, with a virtual "B" side. Hutton, May, Cowdrey, Fred Trueman, Denis Compton, Trevor Bailey and Alec Bedser were missing. Watkins handled Vinoo Mankad very effectively. This is nostalgia for me since the first cricket book I ever read was the one on this tour.

Comparison of extrapolated values with actual values for selected combinations
Single innings
Test Year Batsman          Bowler          Ext Actual Diff (Act to Est)
1810 2006 DPMD Jayawardene N Boje          201  221  - 9.1%
1563 2001 JH Kallis        RW Price        188  189  -0.05%
2034 2012 Azhar Ali        MS Panesar      164  163  +0.07%
1641 2003 SP Fleming       M Muralitharan  160  185  -13.6%
1696 2004 BC Lara          GJ Batty        150  161  - 6.9%
Single Test
Test Year Batsman          Bowler          Ext Actual Diff
1641 2003 SP Fleming       M Muralitharan  249  265  - 6.1%
1572 2001 BC Lara          M Muralitharan  213  240  -11.3%
1952 2010 HM Amla          Harbhajan Singh 188  177  + 6.2%
1743 2005 Younis Khan      A Kumble        185  208  -11.1%
1562 2001 A Flower         CW Henderson    176  202  -12.9%

In this table I have compared the actual head-to-head values as determined in my previous analysis with values extrapolated using the single extrapolation method. The differences are of the order of 15% on either side. In general, the actual values tend to be higher than the extrapolated values.

Finally, a question might arise as to what degree of confidence I have on the extrapolated results. I would say around 80% for the single extrapolation and 70% for the double extrapolation method. In other words I would expect values to be around 10% either side for single extrapolation and 15% on either side for the double extrapolation. Just a gut feeling. That is all. I agree that this is an estimate. However, when we have figures like May scoring 285 runs out of a total of 547 in 258 overs, we are not going to be far off if we say, with 70% degree of confidence, that May would have faced 811 balls (1548*285/547).

Readers are requested to come up with suggestions on how the ball-by-ball data available for the recent 550 matches can be used. I have one idea, provided by Ashwin Krishnamurthy, which is to look at how players played during the period close to reaching landmarks, such as hundreds.

I have created a document file containing all the qualifying performances. There are about 380 Innings-level selections and 270 Test-level combinations, shown in four tables. To download/view this document, please CLICK HERE.

I will not comment on the South African tour happenings since ESPNcricinfo does not like outsiders using strong comments on these matters in their space, and my choice of words cannot be mild.

However, I cannot but pass a comment or two on the Indian bowling woes attributed to the new rules. The sardonic smile you see on the horizon is mine on hearing that the new rules are not helping MS Dhoni. How do the same rules that help the India team plunder 120 runs in the last ten overs become unfair when it comes to the India bowlers? Without the new rules, India might well have finished at 270, in Mohali. And how do the new rules bring down R Ashwin's skills, someone who has opened the bowling in all formats of the game regularly, and who is not a guileful Erapalli Prasanna, by a long mile. And Ravindra Jadeja's flat fastish slow left arm is not going to be affected a lot by a fresher ball. The plain truth is that, barring Mitchell Johnson (and Mohammad Shami at Ranchi), the bowling across the board has been awful. And that is the difference in the series scoreline.

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

  • oldsimon on November 20, 2013, 14:45 GMT

    Dear Ananth This is not about this as such. I edit the Cricket Statistician and am doing something on "top 100 innings" list. I believe you were responsible for the 2001 Wisden lists - did you also update them as I have seen one from 2011 ?
    [[
    Simon, will respond directly to you.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • red_forever on November 2, 2013, 19:26 GMT

    It was Tennis and Man utd match which made up my evening and not India's batting. Fed is showing signs of a good form but still needs some time to get back to challenging the Nadals, Djokovics. may be the time off after the Tour Finals will give him time to regroup just like time after US open.

    I see his shots now have more ZIP than seen this year and he is hitting pretty low and deep which makes return tough. This was on display in Delpo's match and in 1st set vs Nole. But Nole being nole came back.

    Really have to admire Ferrer. No one seems to give him a chance but as they say you make your own luck and he did make his own here and he literally Owned Nadal. Nadal as usual isn't finishing the year well. 3 completely demoralizing losses.

    and have to say Faulker did give a huge scare.That was one hell of a innings.
    [[
    To say Ferrer outran Nadal is to sum up the match. Some of Ferrer's saves were probably better than Nadal's. And the angles Nadal played suited Ferrer. Djokovic is going to play differently. ANd his service is far more potent than Nadal's. I never expected the no.1 ranking to be on the line at London.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Clan_McLachlan on October 28, 2013, 7:16 GMT

    Great work Anantha.

    Does your ball-by-ball data include dropped catches?

    If so, I'd love to see some analysis done on those. For example:

    - Something like baseball's "earned runs"... what happens to batters records if we remove runs scored after offering a chance. While you obviously can't include every missed stumping, run out, bad LBW call, and so on, just looking at this based on dropped catches would be very interesting.

    - perhaps the same for bowlers?

    - A look at wicketkeepers records wrt dropped catches.
    [[
    Yes, Alan, the data from 1546 onwards included dropped catches. The only problem is that the commentary has also evolved over the years. For the earlier matches, there is commentary like
    5.3. Waqar Younis to Atherton. 1 run.
    to a recent commentary line which runs like

    2.3. Steyn to Azhar Ali, no run, caught in the gully once again and the South Africans are excited. The umpire says not out because I think the ball has come off the batsman's arm. Smith asks for a review! Steyn changed his length this time, pitching it short of a length. Azhar dropped his wrists but did not sway out of the way and wore the ball on the arm. It hit him just above the arm guard and looped up to Faf once again. I think the South Africans just got carried away with that one.
    A monk-like economy of words to keyboard diarrhea !!!
    So we have to see what can be done.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Bonehead_maz on October 28, 2013, 2:17 GMT

    "There are very few like Ian Chappell who feels he has very little to lose.> Ananth" Thankfully there seems to be Ponting. Brearley was also recently magnificent. A Sid Barnes was (silently) howled down even back then (both really). What have the players to lose other than integrity ? Memories of PBH May's demeanour arrive :) "Just call me Sir"was an easy and pleasant (to have the honour to speak with you ! - what a player !) duty "Sir".

    Wonderful analysis ! Once again more than we normal mortals will properly digest..... outstanding
    [[
    Murray, If ever you feel that I have assumed any PhD-esque mantle and over-compilcated the analyses, you only have to send a rap on the knuckles through an eMail. I will understand.
    Ananth
    : ]]

    !

  • PhilCkt on October 27, 2013, 9:12 GMT

    (continued from the previous post)

    Considering the relative time spent by both batsmen, this is likely to be more accurate in this case, especially because May batted through 89% of the innings runs.

    This tends to become more and more inaccurate when this percentage comes down. For eg, in an innings where Sehwag scored 293 out of 458 in 82 overs, after which the innings slowed down to 726 in 163 overs, you will get a horribly inaccurate number.

  • PhilCkt on October 27, 2013, 9:11 GMT

    >> Batsman balls = Team balls * Batsman runs / (Sum of Batsman runs)

    For long innings, I would suggest that we don't look at the batsman's scores at all because it unnecessarily rewards fast scoring batsmen. In the May/Cowdrey innings, May batted for 594 minutes and Cowdrey 500 minutes - or his innings was 84% as long as May's. In your method, we get 811 balls for May, but only 438 for Cowdrey, which obviously is way too small a figure.

    We could instead look for the number of runs the team made when the batsman was at the crease. ie, Balls faced = Team score when the batsman was at the crease * Number of balls bowled / Total team score. Here we will get

    May = (518 * 1548) / 583 = 688 balls Cowdrey = (411 * 1548) / 583 = 546 balls.

    (continuted in the next post)
    [[
    Only problem is the non-availability of the exact duration of the batsman innings. The May-Cowdrey example is very clear-cut. Cowdrey entered at 65 for 2 and scored 285 out of 518. Cowldrey entered at 113 for 3 and scored 154 out of 411. In addition to what you have suggested the fact that Cowdrey scored only 154 out of 411 can be used. If I attribute a certain number of runs to this partnership, Cowldrey's share can be determined.
    However once we get extrapolation going there is bound to be some anamoly in anything we do. What stands in my favour is that I have made virtually no assumptions.
    Many other situations would not be clear cut. Even here, let us say that the innings finished at 583 for 5 and May was out. We cannot say with certainty who got out at 524 and who at 583.
    Finally minutes are dicey and not always available.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Vyasa_Shastry on October 27, 2013, 6:39 GMT

    2 of 2

    we could get an estimate of many herculean efforts by the tail and the regular batsman. I found some answers in: http://thecricketcouch.com/blog/2013/01/02/playing-with-the-tail/ 3) How strike rates vary with individual milestones, declarations? 4) Keeping one end up: there might be cases where batsmen pick a particular end/ bowler. Which were those and why were they special? 5) Who has the highest tendency to take a single off the last 2 balls to face a bowler in the next over? Who hogs strike the most?

    I agree that most of my queries revolve around strike rates, averages data applied in various match situations. But I feel it might give a nice insight about stand out efforts in a more objective manner.
    [[
    Excellent suggestions and will be considered seriously. Only drawback is that we can cover only 25% of the Test matches played.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Vyasa_Shastry on October 27, 2013, 6:34 GMT

    Excellent analysis as usual, Anantha! I don't see a better method that yours to provide a decent estimate of balls played and runs scored. What I like in your analysis is the post script part where you have provided the difference between the prediction and data which clearly shows that the extrapolation method is a reliable first guess of the aforementioned unknown data.

    My suggestions are only for the last part of your article, i.e. what to do with ball by ball data. I'm sure yourself and other co-readers would have come up with these: 1) How does strike rate vary with a FOW? Intuition says that on average, batters become defensive with wickets falling and get aggressive with the tail. So, with this, what are the most standout innings keeping in mind the match situation? 2) Which batsmen batted best with the tail? It may be hogging the strike, scoring runs, choosing to expose the lower order bat to a lesser bowler. And if batting averages of the tail is considered, 1 of 2

  • on October 27, 2013, 4:56 GMT

    1) A comparative study of Boycott's 246 with other entires in the table shows that he was unfairly dropped, considering England won the test also. Perhaps there may be other factors beyond statistics at work there. 2) In the detailed excel sheet, I find that as the mid 80s and90s approach, the entries become significantly less (or pertain largely to matches with boring draw). Could the comparative less number be due to Australia starting to score at 3.5 /4 per over constantly from this period amassing 500 by 2nd day lunch?
    [[
    Pawan, as usual some perceptive comments.
    Boycott's is an interesting study. 246 in 555 balls is not bad. 2.65 was quite acceptable in those days. And these are actual figures. Also the team rate was only 3.0, a mere 10% above Boycott. Today (and in 1967) it seems to be a strange decision. Stranger still, Boycott did not bat in the second innings when England chased 126. Punishment maybe.
    Yes, it is probably true that the scoring rates became higher decade after decade. Australia certainly took the lead in this. As India did during this decade.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • red_forever on November 2, 2013, 12:09 GMT

    IF these kind of pitches were present in 1990's, then Sachin and Lara could have scored 4-5 200's in ODI's.

    This series has made me lose interest in ODI's. 2nd ODI was a good match because of Testosterone level of the chase but the last match and this one has made me stop watching it.

    That is some crap being dissed out in the name of the pitches.
    [[
    My next article covers this particular aspect a little more. In fact I made a comment or two here and then took those to that article.
    At last Federer is showing some of the form of 2012. And now Ferrer is playing like Nadal and Nadal like Ferrer.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • oldsimon on November 20, 2013, 14:45 GMT

    Dear Ananth This is not about this as such. I edit the Cricket Statistician and am doing something on "top 100 innings" list. I believe you were responsible for the 2001 Wisden lists - did you also update them as I have seen one from 2011 ?
    [[
    Simon, will respond directly to you.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • red_forever on November 2, 2013, 19:26 GMT

    It was Tennis and Man utd match which made up my evening and not India's batting. Fed is showing signs of a good form but still needs some time to get back to challenging the Nadals, Djokovics. may be the time off after the Tour Finals will give him time to regroup just like time after US open.

    I see his shots now have more ZIP than seen this year and he is hitting pretty low and deep which makes return tough. This was on display in Delpo's match and in 1st set vs Nole. But Nole being nole came back.

    Really have to admire Ferrer. No one seems to give him a chance but as they say you make your own luck and he did make his own here and he literally Owned Nadal. Nadal as usual isn't finishing the year well. 3 completely demoralizing losses.

    and have to say Faulker did give a huge scare.That was one hell of a innings.
    [[
    To say Ferrer outran Nadal is to sum up the match. Some of Ferrer's saves were probably better than Nadal's. And the angles Nadal played suited Ferrer. Djokovic is going to play differently. ANd his service is far more potent than Nadal's. I never expected the no.1 ranking to be on the line at London.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Clan_McLachlan on October 28, 2013, 7:16 GMT

    Great work Anantha.

    Does your ball-by-ball data include dropped catches?

    If so, I'd love to see some analysis done on those. For example:

    - Something like baseball's "earned runs"... what happens to batters records if we remove runs scored after offering a chance. While you obviously can't include every missed stumping, run out, bad LBW call, and so on, just looking at this based on dropped catches would be very interesting.

    - perhaps the same for bowlers?

    - A look at wicketkeepers records wrt dropped catches.
    [[
    Yes, Alan, the data from 1546 onwards included dropped catches. The only problem is that the commentary has also evolved over the years. For the earlier matches, there is commentary like
    5.3. Waqar Younis to Atherton. 1 run.
    to a recent commentary line which runs like

    2.3. Steyn to Azhar Ali, no run, caught in the gully once again and the South Africans are excited. The umpire says not out because I think the ball has come off the batsman's arm. Smith asks for a review! Steyn changed his length this time, pitching it short of a length. Azhar dropped his wrists but did not sway out of the way and wore the ball on the arm. It hit him just above the arm guard and looped up to Faf once again. I think the South Africans just got carried away with that one.
    A monk-like economy of words to keyboard diarrhea !!!
    So we have to see what can be done.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Bonehead_maz on October 28, 2013, 2:17 GMT

    "There are very few like Ian Chappell who feels he has very little to lose.> Ananth" Thankfully there seems to be Ponting. Brearley was also recently magnificent. A Sid Barnes was (silently) howled down even back then (both really). What have the players to lose other than integrity ? Memories of PBH May's demeanour arrive :) "Just call me Sir"was an easy and pleasant (to have the honour to speak with you ! - what a player !) duty "Sir".

    Wonderful analysis ! Once again more than we normal mortals will properly digest..... outstanding
    [[
    Murray, If ever you feel that I have assumed any PhD-esque mantle and over-compilcated the analyses, you only have to send a rap on the knuckles through an eMail. I will understand.
    Ananth
    : ]]

    !

  • PhilCkt on October 27, 2013, 9:12 GMT

    (continued from the previous post)

    Considering the relative time spent by both batsmen, this is likely to be more accurate in this case, especially because May batted through 89% of the innings runs.

    This tends to become more and more inaccurate when this percentage comes down. For eg, in an innings where Sehwag scored 293 out of 458 in 82 overs, after which the innings slowed down to 726 in 163 overs, you will get a horribly inaccurate number.

  • PhilCkt on October 27, 2013, 9:11 GMT

    >> Batsman balls = Team balls * Batsman runs / (Sum of Batsman runs)

    For long innings, I would suggest that we don't look at the batsman's scores at all because it unnecessarily rewards fast scoring batsmen. In the May/Cowdrey innings, May batted for 594 minutes and Cowdrey 500 minutes - or his innings was 84% as long as May's. In your method, we get 811 balls for May, but only 438 for Cowdrey, which obviously is way too small a figure.

    We could instead look for the number of runs the team made when the batsman was at the crease. ie, Balls faced = Team score when the batsman was at the crease * Number of balls bowled / Total team score. Here we will get

    May = (518 * 1548) / 583 = 688 balls Cowdrey = (411 * 1548) / 583 = 546 balls.

    (continuted in the next post)
    [[
    Only problem is the non-availability of the exact duration of the batsman innings. The May-Cowdrey example is very clear-cut. Cowdrey entered at 65 for 2 and scored 285 out of 518. Cowldrey entered at 113 for 3 and scored 154 out of 411. In addition to what you have suggested the fact that Cowdrey scored only 154 out of 411 can be used. If I attribute a certain number of runs to this partnership, Cowldrey's share can be determined.
    However once we get extrapolation going there is bound to be some anamoly in anything we do. What stands in my favour is that I have made virtually no assumptions.
    Many other situations would not be clear cut. Even here, let us say that the innings finished at 583 for 5 and May was out. We cannot say with certainty who got out at 524 and who at 583.
    Finally minutes are dicey and not always available.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Vyasa_Shastry on October 27, 2013, 6:39 GMT

    2 of 2

    we could get an estimate of many herculean efforts by the tail and the regular batsman. I found some answers in: http://thecricketcouch.com/blog/2013/01/02/playing-with-the-tail/ 3) How strike rates vary with individual milestones, declarations? 4) Keeping one end up: there might be cases where batsmen pick a particular end/ bowler. Which were those and why were they special? 5) Who has the highest tendency to take a single off the last 2 balls to face a bowler in the next over? Who hogs strike the most?

    I agree that most of my queries revolve around strike rates, averages data applied in various match situations. But I feel it might give a nice insight about stand out efforts in a more objective manner.
    [[
    Excellent suggestions and will be considered seriously. Only drawback is that we can cover only 25% of the Test matches played.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Vyasa_Shastry on October 27, 2013, 6:34 GMT

    Excellent analysis as usual, Anantha! I don't see a better method that yours to provide a decent estimate of balls played and runs scored. What I like in your analysis is the post script part where you have provided the difference between the prediction and data which clearly shows that the extrapolation method is a reliable first guess of the aforementioned unknown data.

    My suggestions are only for the last part of your article, i.e. what to do with ball by ball data. I'm sure yourself and other co-readers would have come up with these: 1) How does strike rate vary with a FOW? Intuition says that on average, batters become defensive with wickets falling and get aggressive with the tail. So, with this, what are the most standout innings keeping in mind the match situation? 2) Which batsmen batted best with the tail? It may be hogging the strike, scoring runs, choosing to expose the lower order bat to a lesser bowler. And if batting averages of the tail is considered, 1 of 2

  • on October 27, 2013, 4:56 GMT

    1) A comparative study of Boycott's 246 with other entires in the table shows that he was unfairly dropped, considering England won the test also. Perhaps there may be other factors beyond statistics at work there. 2) In the detailed excel sheet, I find that as the mid 80s and90s approach, the entries become significantly less (or pertain largely to matches with boring draw). Could the comparative less number be due to Australia starting to score at 3.5 /4 per over constantly from this period amassing 500 by 2nd day lunch?
    [[
    Pawan, as usual some perceptive comments.
    Boycott's is an interesting study. 246 in 555 balls is not bad. 2.65 was quite acceptable in those days. And these are actual figures. Also the team rate was only 3.0, a mere 10% above Boycott. Today (and in 1967) it seems to be a strange decision. Stranger still, Boycott did not bat in the second innings when England chased 126. Punishment maybe.
    Yes, it is probably true that the scoring rates became higher decade after decade. Australia certainly took the lead in this. As India did during this decade.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • red_forever on November 2, 2013, 12:09 GMT

    IF these kind of pitches were present in 1990's, then Sachin and Lara could have scored 4-5 200's in ODI's.

    This series has made me lose interest in ODI's. 2nd ODI was a good match because of Testosterone level of the chase but the last match and this one has made me stop watching it.

    That is some crap being dissed out in the name of the pitches.
    [[
    My next article covers this particular aspect a little more. In fact I made a comment or two here and then took those to that article.
    At last Federer is showing some of the form of 2012. And now Ferrer is playing like Nadal and Nadal like Ferrer.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • ananth_follower on October 31, 2013, 3:08 GMT

    Hey Ananth, You said before how you like to help people with their own queries. Of late, with Virat's record-breaking spree, and coming across records on the stats page, I want to play around on my own with some numbers. How do I find lists liks "Fastest to 17 ODI centuries in terms of innings" or "Fastest to 4500 runs in ODIs" etc. ("Fastest to" queries). I tried playing around on Statsguru but couldn't do it, please help? Thanks a lot, A fan
    [[
    I do Statsguru queries very rarely. SInce I have my own complete Database, what you have asked me would be. for me, 10 minutes work, using one of the many enquiry programs I have. What I will do is to throw this open to the public. Let them help you out.
    My suggestion is that you post this comment in the next article also since it deals with the ODI game.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Bonehead_maz on October 28, 2013, 4:50 GMT

    " If ever you feel that I have assumed any PhD-esque mantle and over-compilcated the analyses, you only have to send a rap on the knuckles through an eMail. " Unlikely.... you actually make it finally understandable to even we statistics failures. I was alluding to the sheer volume of data you always present in your attached...... it's magnificent, but beyond what most of us can usefully take in (time being the only problem).
    [[
    Thanks a lot, mate.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Bonehead_maz on October 27, 2013, 23:18 GMT

    You answered the minutes thing already to Philckt ......thanks and what a pity. Lower deliveries per hour, higher strike rates both ways, might have been interesting to compare minutes per wicket rather than balls ?

  • Bonehead_maz on October 27, 2013, 23:03 GMT

    It's interesting to see the number of 1950's innings featuring. It was not a time of big scores. (I'd sort have expected it in '30's) Ananth, I wonder if you might think to compare from the early end ? (or whether it'd be any use ?) Are there minutes data available still ? Cricket has become about balls but used to be about minutes ? (Ha ha was about batsmen scoring runs not batters hitting them). Have paid an unusual amount of attention to 50 over cricket just lately. I too am feeling half "Battered"(like a piece of fish ! lol). Same stuff in our domestic comp. Batting paradise pitches, postage stamp grounds. It might be a great "product" ? but sure isn't the same product as cricket. When I was young, it was said "you will never see more rubbish than in Body corporate executive comitees or ametuer sport administration" Who knew back then how much improvement can come by making it professional !!! Simply wow....... and my friend you are not alone in being disgusted. It's endemic :(
    [[
    Murray, I will revert to looking at the minutes available later since that would require me to spend a lot of time.
    I also blame the CA and CSA for the current situation. The loss of money makes them accede to every request (rather command) of BCCI. I do not care how Lorgat behaved when was in ICC or how many arguments he had with BCCI. How can CSA accept these terms just for the privilege of hosting India. Can Qantas tell Infosys that the 50 million A$ contract will be given only if xyz is not involved. Can ECB tell BCCI to "Keep Srinivasan off any discussions with us". The pity is that the players themselves have to keep quiet or their IPL contracts would go off the window. See how Hussey back-tracked. There are very few like Ian Chappell who feels he has very little to lose.> Ananth
    : ]]

  • ras on October 27, 2013, 17:48 GMT

    Well Good analysis. There is a method for recording exact balls played for some of the recent games. But that method is very painstaking and time consuming.

    Since recordings for the full matches post 1990 is available, somebody can watch the entire game on video and re-score it to compile exact ball-by-ball data. But I know this method will be highly impractical and you may not get improvement beyond 10-15% over extrapolated figures
    [[
    It is impractical to do and the cost will be enormous. It is best to make do with what we have.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • guptahitesh4u on October 27, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    Hi I love reading your statistical analysis and this one is also interesting. I have a qurey. The no. of balls in an over has kept changing over the period of time. Initially it used to be 4 balls per over, which changed to 5 and then 6. Then for a good amount of time, we used to have 8 balls per over. Have you considered that fact while doing the extrapolation? I understand that even with considering an over having only six balls, this analysis is a difficult one to come up with. I just had that query and hence asked.
    [[
    All my calculations are in and data storage is in balls and not overs. So the number of balls per over figure is only used for display purposes.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on October 27, 2013, 1:25 GMT

    Viv scored far too quickly for this list.
    [[
    This entry is from the uploaded file. As part of his 291 at Oval, Richards faced 128 balls off Underwood. That is his highest. But he faced only 386 balls for his 291. Surprisingly, as a bowler he bowled 123 balls to John Wright at Basin Reserve.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • calcu on October 26, 2013, 13:43 GMT

    All so good. But the strange thing was there was no don in any of the lists! What are your plans for next article?
    [[
    Shows one thing. Bradman scored quickly. He really did not play very long innimngs. Having said that there are a few entries in the downloadable document. He faced 165 balls from JC White during the patient 191 runs he scored at MCG in his third Test.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • calcu on October 26, 2013, 13:43 GMT

    All so good. But the strange thing was there was no don in any of the lists! What are your plans for next article?
    [[
    Shows one thing. Bradman scored quickly. He really did not play very long innimngs. Having said that there are a few entries in the downloadable document. He faced 165 balls from JC White during the patient 191 runs he scored at MCG in his third Test.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on October 27, 2013, 1:25 GMT

    Viv scored far too quickly for this list.
    [[
    This entry is from the uploaded file. As part of his 291 at Oval, Richards faced 128 balls off Underwood. That is his highest. But he faced only 386 balls for his 291. Surprisingly, as a bowler he bowled 123 balls to John Wright at Basin Reserve.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • guptahitesh4u on October 27, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    Hi I love reading your statistical analysis and this one is also interesting. I have a qurey. The no. of balls in an over has kept changing over the period of time. Initially it used to be 4 balls per over, which changed to 5 and then 6. Then for a good amount of time, we used to have 8 balls per over. Have you considered that fact while doing the extrapolation? I understand that even with considering an over having only six balls, this analysis is a difficult one to come up with. I just had that query and hence asked.
    [[
    All my calculations are in and data storage is in balls and not overs. So the number of balls per over figure is only used for display purposes.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • ras on October 27, 2013, 17:48 GMT

    Well Good analysis. There is a method for recording exact balls played for some of the recent games. But that method is very painstaking and time consuming.

    Since recordings for the full matches post 1990 is available, somebody can watch the entire game on video and re-score it to compile exact ball-by-ball data. But I know this method will be highly impractical and you may not get improvement beyond 10-15% over extrapolated figures
    [[
    It is impractical to do and the cost will be enormous. It is best to make do with what we have.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • Bonehead_maz on October 27, 2013, 23:03 GMT

    It's interesting to see the number of 1950's innings featuring. It was not a time of big scores. (I'd sort have expected it in '30's) Ananth, I wonder if you might think to compare from the early end ? (or whether it'd be any use ?) Are there minutes data available still ? Cricket has become about balls but used to be about minutes ? (Ha ha was about batsmen scoring runs not batters hitting them). Have paid an unusual amount of attention to 50 over cricket just lately. I too am feeling half "Battered"(like a piece of fish ! lol). Same stuff in our domestic comp. Batting paradise pitches, postage stamp grounds. It might be a great "product" ? but sure isn't the same product as cricket. When I was young, it was said "you will never see more rubbish than in Body corporate executive comitees or ametuer sport administration" Who knew back then how much improvement can come by making it professional !!! Simply wow....... and my friend you are not alone in being disgusted. It's endemic :(
    [[
    Murray, I will revert to looking at the minutes available later since that would require me to spend a lot of time.
    I also blame the CA and CSA for the current situation. The loss of money makes them accede to every request (rather command) of BCCI. I do not care how Lorgat behaved when was in ICC or how many arguments he had with BCCI. How can CSA accept these terms just for the privilege of hosting India. Can Qantas tell Infosys that the 50 million A$ contract will be given only if xyz is not involved. Can ECB tell BCCI to "Keep Srinivasan off any discussions with us". The pity is that the players themselves have to keep quiet or their IPL contracts would go off the window. See how Hussey back-tracked. There are very few like Ian Chappell who feels he has very little to lose.> Ananth
    : ]]

  • Bonehead_maz on October 27, 2013, 23:18 GMT

    You answered the minutes thing already to Philckt ......thanks and what a pity. Lower deliveries per hour, higher strike rates both ways, might have been interesting to compare minutes per wicket rather than balls ?

  • Bonehead_maz on October 28, 2013, 4:50 GMT

    " If ever you feel that I have assumed any PhD-esque mantle and over-compilcated the analyses, you only have to send a rap on the knuckles through an eMail. " Unlikely.... you actually make it finally understandable to even we statistics failures. I was alluding to the sheer volume of data you always present in your attached...... it's magnificent, but beyond what most of us can usefully take in (time being the only problem).
    [[
    Thanks a lot, mate.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • ananth_follower on October 31, 2013, 3:08 GMT

    Hey Ananth, You said before how you like to help people with their own queries. Of late, with Virat's record-breaking spree, and coming across records on the stats page, I want to play around on my own with some numbers. How do I find lists liks "Fastest to 17 ODI centuries in terms of innings" or "Fastest to 4500 runs in ODIs" etc. ("Fastest to" queries). I tried playing around on Statsguru but couldn't do it, please help? Thanks a lot, A fan
    [[
    I do Statsguru queries very rarely. SInce I have my own complete Database, what you have asked me would be. for me, 10 minutes work, using one of the many enquiry programs I have. What I will do is to throw this open to the public. Let them help you out.
    My suggestion is that you post this comment in the next article also since it deals with the ODI game.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • red_forever on November 2, 2013, 12:09 GMT

    IF these kind of pitches were present in 1990's, then Sachin and Lara could have scored 4-5 200's in ODI's.

    This series has made me lose interest in ODI's. 2nd ODI was a good match because of Testosterone level of the chase but the last match and this one has made me stop watching it.

    That is some crap being dissed out in the name of the pitches.
    [[
    My next article covers this particular aspect a little more. In fact I made a comment or two here and then took those to that article.
    At last Federer is showing some of the form of 2012. And now Ferrer is playing like Nadal and Nadal like Ferrer.
    Ananth
    : ]]

  • on October 27, 2013, 4:56 GMT

    1) A comparative study of Boycott's 246 with other entires in the table shows that he was unfairly dropped, considering England won the test also. Perhaps there may be other factors beyond statistics at work there. 2) In the detailed excel sheet, I find that as the mid 80s and90s approach, the entries become significantly less (or pertain largely to matches with boring draw). Could the comparative less number be due to Australia starting to score at 3.5 /4 per over constantly from this period amassing 500 by 2nd day lunch?
    [[
    Pawan, as usual some perceptive comments.
    Boycott's is an interesting study. 246 in 555 balls is not bad. 2.65 was quite acceptable in those days. And these are actual figures. Also the team rate was only 3.0, a mere 10% above Boycott. Today (and in 1967) it seems to be a strange decision. Stranger still, Boycott did not bat in the second innings when England chased 126. Punishment maybe.
    Yes, it is probably true that the scoring rates became higher decade after decade. Australia certainly took the lead in this. As India did during this decade.
    Ananth
    : ]]