November 3, 2013

Are India's bowling woes part of a larger trend?

Has T20 affected one-day cricket on a large scale, or is it mostly an Indian phenomenon?
15

India's batsmen have more than made up for their poor bowling attacks © BCCI

On October 16, 2013, Virat Kohli was in one of his mad moods at Jaipur's Sawai Mansingh Stadium. He made a century in 52 balls and India chased 360 easily. Three days later, in Mohali, MS Dhoni produced a special of his own. It was a sprawling, undefeated affair that began in the 14th over of India's innings with the team four wickets down. Dhoni's first 50 runs took 77 deliveries and 22 overs of batting. His next 89 runs came in 44 deliveries. It would not be enough. James Faulkner launched a breathtaking assault on Ishant Sharma to help Australia successfully chase a total in excess of 300 against India for the first time.

The sequence of scores in the ongoing series has prompted plenty of comment. On this blog, Jon Hotten suggests that the T20 game is having a say in the 50-over game and the single is the chief casualty. Michael Jeh worries about the inability of contemporary bowlers to consistently land yorkers correctly. V Ramnarayan suggests eight rules to improve the fortunes of bowlers. At one point in the washed-out game in Ranchi, Lawrence Booth, the Wisden editor, tweeted: "[I]t's a measure of this series that Australia's total currently looks well below par". At the time, the Australians were about 240, scoring at about five and a half runs an over. Harsha Bhogle suggested that the fielding restriction was killing bowlers.

Is it really true that there has been a general explosion in ODI run-scoring since the advent of T20? Or is this a peculiarly Indian phenomenon? The figures suggest that while scoring rates in ODI cricket have increased across the board, games involving India are a special case that deserves attention.

Here is a look at the trend since 1971. I calculated the average number of runs achieved over 50 overs in each calendar year for home and away teams.

© Kartikeya Date

I also calculated an overall figure.

On average, home teams score ten runs more than away teams over 50 overs in ODI cricket. In the early 1990s, the average number of runs scored over 50 overs was about 220. In the late 2000s, this increased to about 250. Interestingly, there has never been a calendar year in which bowlers have taken ten wickets over 50 overs on average. The average number of wickets over 50 overs of ODI cricket has consistently between seven and nine.

Do India follow this trend? If we consider only matches played against the top eight Test-playing nations (all apart from Bangladesh and Zimbabwe), India have produced the third-best win-loss record over the last ten years. During this time, they have conceded more runs per over than any other team. The most successful team over the last ten years, Australia, conceded 249 runs over 50 overs. India conceded 267. The second most profligate team in the last ten years, England, conceded 262. England won 40% of their games over this period. India won 56%. Over the last five years, the difference is more stark. India have been the most successful ODI side during this time, India have won 65% of their games, and conceded on average 270 over 50 overs. England have won half their games and conceded 264. The story remains the same since the 2011 World Cup. India and England remain the two most profligate ODI teams in the field.

Over the last ten years, on average, India's batting has scored 270 over 50 overs. Over the last five years, this figure grows to a whopping 290. Since the 2011 World Cup, India's batsmen have averaged 281 runs over 50 overs. India have consistently been 15 runs better than the next best team with the bat during this period of domination.

While these figures reveal that India have produced the best win-loss record in ODI cricket due to their phenomenal batting power and depth, despite having the worst bowling attack in the limited-overs game, they also suggest that India are something of an outlier. Matches involving India over the last ten years have produced 269 runs per 50 overs. Matches involving the top seven Test playing teams other than India during the same period have produced 251 runs. Over the last five years, matches involving the top seven teams other than India produce 252. Matches involving India during this period have involved 279 runs being scored over 50 overs. Since the 2011 World Cup, when India are involved, 274 runs per 50 over innings. When India aren't involved, 249.

There is some evidence to suggest that this anomaly is not related to India as a high-scoring venue for ODI games. In games played in India without India participating, scoring rates are significantly lower at 236. This should be treated with a little bit of caution as the number of games in India where India didn't participate is small. ODIs involving India since the 2011 World Cup played outside India have seen 274 runs scored per 50 overs. If we only include games in England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, 279 runs are scored per 50-over innings. Here is a more detailed chart that illustrates this:

The figures suggest that while there has been a small increase in run rates in ODI cricket, when India play, this increase is more dramatic. Further, India's economy rate and strike rate have increased at a faster rate in recent years, especially over the last five years. This, in turn, suggests that India's bowling attack has been in decline and India's batsmen have been making up the difference magnificently. India's bowlers concede about 15-20 extra runs over 50 overs compared to most of their opponents. This could be put down to fielding, but given India's current ground fielding, it is hard to imagine that they are 20 runs worse than the competition.

There is a more cynical, and sadly, perhaps more accurate conclusion that is possible here. When India play these days, a lot of money is at stake. For many boards, an India match or series means financial security for the next few years. But even in the case of boards where this isn't the case, there is some evidence to suggest that India matches are played in more batsman-friendly conditions. Look at the leap in ODI scoring rates in England in 2002 and 2011 (see 2007 as well). These were the years when India toured.

Is the Indian run-rate growth down to India's poor bowling, India's magnificent batting, or what boards around the world think Indian cricket audiences like to watch? I think it is a combination of all three things.

Kartikeya Date writes at A Cricketing View and tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on November 9, 2013, 13:27 GMT

    There could be another explanation - when India bats first, the total score tends be on the higher side. The opposition, even if it doesn't win, attempts its best to reach as close to the score as possible. Also, if the opposition knows India is batting second, it'll definitely try and push for the maximum score possible - hitting as much out of the ground as possible as we saw in the recent Ind-Aus series.

    But yes, as some point out that batsman-friendly pitches are being prepared for India, well, that's just a very sorry state of affairs for world cricket. Even the Indian cricket fans wish to see a more even contest between bat and ball. Let's hope we get to see that during the SA series.

  • Nampally on November 7, 2013, 21:16 GMT

    It is difficult for bowlers to take 10 wkts. in 50 overs because no side goes in with 5 specialist bowlers. In addition to this the pitches are made to favour the batsmen + ICC rules are heavily on favour of batsmen- with 4 outfielders instead of 5. The use of 2 New balls eliminates any chances of reverse swing or effective use of the spinners + 3 power plays to boot. If the bowlers were allowed say 12 overs/bowler with just one ball + 5 outfielders + 2 power plays+ Minimum boundary of 80 M, then it will even out the Bat Vs. Ball battle to a large extent. This will allow 4 specialist bowlers/team + one all rounder to make 5 bowlers. It also permits 6 specialist batsmen + one all rounder. The boundaries are getting smaller & smaller because there is no regulations to impose even the 75 M boundary rule. This is the main reason for high scoring games on perfect batting strips & short boundaries <70 M. Stats are great to compile but ICC should revise the rules as above & implement them.

  • kartikeya on November 5, 2013, 19:40 GMT

    A couple of points:

    50 overs on average simply means "per 300 balls". So it is interesting that the average strike rate achieved by the fielding side in ODI cricket has never been under 30, even though scoring rates have ranged from about 200 to 250. The best bowling strike rates (from the bowlers point of view) have been 36.8 in 1976 and 38.7 in 2013. Counting LBWs, the best years for bowling teams have been 1976 and 2005 (35.2 balls per dismissal).

    If ODI games had been 60 overs per innings, we might have, perhaps, seen a different contest between bat and ball.

  • McGorium on November 5, 2013, 3:09 GMT

    "Interestingly, there has never been a calendar year in which bowlers have taken ten wickets over 50 overs on average." I'm taking 50 overs to mean "50 overs or an innings, whichever is shorter". That being the case, I can't see why the above statistic is interesting or surprising: The *only* way you could ever get an average of 10 wickets in 50 overs in a calendar year is if *every* game had 10 wickets being taken in each innings. As that is extremely unlikely, (you'd need every game to be a tie in which each side is bowled out for the same score). Additionally, to argue that high scoring games are a result of some partiality towards India is pretty tenuous. "When India don't play" is a pretty broad category that includes games played by the weakest (and strongest) teams. I wouldn't be surprised if you did the same calculation for (say)Eng and came to the same conclusion. It's also interesting that he compares a sample size of 6 to 35-40 and believes he can draw reasonable conclusions

  • Jason_Key88 on November 5, 2013, 2:49 GMT

    indians can't handle pace and bounce. they are only good for batting on placid pitches, small stadiums and short boundaries. it's sad for cricket that average players are getting compared to past greats like ponting, lara, hayden etc.

  • Adam_Leban on November 5, 2013, 1:57 GMT

    If India is such a great team, why have they never won a series in Aussie? Why do they find it so hard to win matches abroad and play well on pitches, which has extra bit of juice. India's win ratio is very poor abroad and scoring runs on dead wickets means nothing. It doesn't help you grow as a player.

  • Adam_Leban on November 5, 2013, 1:54 GMT

    @Sunrays. I agree with you completely mate. When India lost the series badly in NZ, they refused to tour for the next five years to avoid another embarrassment. India found pitches and conditions tough to deal with during the 2002-2003 tour and to appease the Indians, NZ cricket caved in and produced slower wickets. I remember, there was lot of flak directed towards the administrators for giving in. Would India prepare bowler friendly wickets when Kiwis tour, don't think so.

  • on November 5, 2013, 1:43 GMT

    CricIndia208. Huh, talk about being delusional. How did the Indian team fare when Pakistan toured India and consistently bowled out the team cheaply? The pitches had bit of grass and bounce, hence they couldn't handle it. Everyone knows, India has the worst bowling line-up in world cricket. They need to prepare flat wickets to assist their batsman's in order to compete. That's why India struggles to discover any decent fast/spin bowlers.

  • on November 4, 2013, 13:42 GMT

    I agree to the statistics what you said but the problem is Indians are not real fast bowlers thinking they are the fast bowlers they try to bowl Yorkers and short pitch if they bowl stump to stump then they can control the runs.

  • DingDong420 on November 4, 2013, 13:34 GMT

    Again...why is always about Indian bowlers, the Aussies gave away around 150 in the last 10 overs of last match and nobody talks about their bowlers.

    When India do get pitches that arent as flat as those in India they win the Champions Trophy and win in West Indies etc...

    If you don't like flat pitches go and watch SA play Pak or spend the summer in England

  • on November 9, 2013, 13:27 GMT

    There could be another explanation - when India bats first, the total score tends be on the higher side. The opposition, even if it doesn't win, attempts its best to reach as close to the score as possible. Also, if the opposition knows India is batting second, it'll definitely try and push for the maximum score possible - hitting as much out of the ground as possible as we saw in the recent Ind-Aus series.

    But yes, as some point out that batsman-friendly pitches are being prepared for India, well, that's just a very sorry state of affairs for world cricket. Even the Indian cricket fans wish to see a more even contest between bat and ball. Let's hope we get to see that during the SA series.

  • Nampally on November 7, 2013, 21:16 GMT

    It is difficult for bowlers to take 10 wkts. in 50 overs because no side goes in with 5 specialist bowlers. In addition to this the pitches are made to favour the batsmen + ICC rules are heavily on favour of batsmen- with 4 outfielders instead of 5. The use of 2 New balls eliminates any chances of reverse swing or effective use of the spinners + 3 power plays to boot. If the bowlers were allowed say 12 overs/bowler with just one ball + 5 outfielders + 2 power plays+ Minimum boundary of 80 M, then it will even out the Bat Vs. Ball battle to a large extent. This will allow 4 specialist bowlers/team + one all rounder to make 5 bowlers. It also permits 6 specialist batsmen + one all rounder. The boundaries are getting smaller & smaller because there is no regulations to impose even the 75 M boundary rule. This is the main reason for high scoring games on perfect batting strips & short boundaries <70 M. Stats are great to compile but ICC should revise the rules as above & implement them.

  • kartikeya on November 5, 2013, 19:40 GMT

    A couple of points:

    50 overs on average simply means "per 300 balls". So it is interesting that the average strike rate achieved by the fielding side in ODI cricket has never been under 30, even though scoring rates have ranged from about 200 to 250. The best bowling strike rates (from the bowlers point of view) have been 36.8 in 1976 and 38.7 in 2013. Counting LBWs, the best years for bowling teams have been 1976 and 2005 (35.2 balls per dismissal).

    If ODI games had been 60 overs per innings, we might have, perhaps, seen a different contest between bat and ball.

  • McGorium on November 5, 2013, 3:09 GMT

    "Interestingly, there has never been a calendar year in which bowlers have taken ten wickets over 50 overs on average." I'm taking 50 overs to mean "50 overs or an innings, whichever is shorter". That being the case, I can't see why the above statistic is interesting or surprising: The *only* way you could ever get an average of 10 wickets in 50 overs in a calendar year is if *every* game had 10 wickets being taken in each innings. As that is extremely unlikely, (you'd need every game to be a tie in which each side is bowled out for the same score). Additionally, to argue that high scoring games are a result of some partiality towards India is pretty tenuous. "When India don't play" is a pretty broad category that includes games played by the weakest (and strongest) teams. I wouldn't be surprised if you did the same calculation for (say)Eng and came to the same conclusion. It's also interesting that he compares a sample size of 6 to 35-40 and believes he can draw reasonable conclusions

  • Jason_Key88 on November 5, 2013, 2:49 GMT

    indians can't handle pace and bounce. they are only good for batting on placid pitches, small stadiums and short boundaries. it's sad for cricket that average players are getting compared to past greats like ponting, lara, hayden etc.

  • Adam_Leban on November 5, 2013, 1:57 GMT

    If India is such a great team, why have they never won a series in Aussie? Why do they find it so hard to win matches abroad and play well on pitches, which has extra bit of juice. India's win ratio is very poor abroad and scoring runs on dead wickets means nothing. It doesn't help you grow as a player.

  • Adam_Leban on November 5, 2013, 1:54 GMT

    @Sunrays. I agree with you completely mate. When India lost the series badly in NZ, they refused to tour for the next five years to avoid another embarrassment. India found pitches and conditions tough to deal with during the 2002-2003 tour and to appease the Indians, NZ cricket caved in and produced slower wickets. I remember, there was lot of flak directed towards the administrators for giving in. Would India prepare bowler friendly wickets when Kiwis tour, don't think so.

  • on November 5, 2013, 1:43 GMT

    CricIndia208. Huh, talk about being delusional. How did the Indian team fare when Pakistan toured India and consistently bowled out the team cheaply? The pitches had bit of grass and bounce, hence they couldn't handle it. Everyone knows, India has the worst bowling line-up in world cricket. They need to prepare flat wickets to assist their batsman's in order to compete. That's why India struggles to discover any decent fast/spin bowlers.

  • on November 4, 2013, 13:42 GMT

    I agree to the statistics what you said but the problem is Indians are not real fast bowlers thinking they are the fast bowlers they try to bowl Yorkers and short pitch if they bowl stump to stump then they can control the runs.

  • DingDong420 on November 4, 2013, 13:34 GMT

    Again...why is always about Indian bowlers, the Aussies gave away around 150 in the last 10 overs of last match and nobody talks about their bowlers.

    When India do get pitches that arent as flat as those in India they win the Champions Trophy and win in West Indies etc...

    If you don't like flat pitches go and watch SA play Pak or spend the summer in England

  • mzm149 on November 4, 2013, 8:25 GMT

    Only Amla, de Villiers, Smith, Kallis and DUminy will tell in a month's time that how bad Indian bowling line up is.

  • ThatsJustCricket on November 4, 2013, 3:49 GMT

    Yeah right. So, Indian batsmen make truckloads of run in India but that only because the pitches are flat. Well what if they make runs abroad, oh wait, the host country prepared batting friendly pitches for the Indian batters to plunder. What a blinder of a logic. So, the Indian batsmen are never any good wherever they make runs. It's such a pathetic logic, it is not even funny. The reason the average score goes up in matches involving India is simple. The Indian bowlers are useless and let the opposition score more whereas the Indian batters are better in the ODIs than most others so they score more runs against almost any team. Sorry to state the obvious, but it seems like not everyone can see it.

  • Sunrays on November 4, 2013, 1:54 GMT

    Everybody knows India's on-field success is at least partly a function of its off-field power. Many may not want to admit it. Contrast the pitches between the India tours of New Zealand in 2002 and 2009. They obviously had success with the 2002 pitches; why did they have to change it to batting friendly tracks in 2009. Kartikeya has a point here. There will always be exceptions. But the trend is to bow to India's off-field power (as SA did recently).

  • Garp on November 3, 2013, 12:42 GMT

    What did the BCCI expect to happen with the ordering of flat, lifeless, batting tracks instead of an at least fair pitch to bowl on. That is the only blemish on Rohit's double century tbh. The BCCI is so concerned with ticket sales and entertainment that they totally disregard making a match fair and interesting. For me watching a cricket match in any middle eastern country is boring, it isn't cricket, it is a batting demonstration with the odd ball the grips and may do something.

  • CricIndia208 on November 3, 2013, 9:03 GMT

    I do not agree. In the champions trophy, the Indian bowlers simply blew the opposition out of the park. Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka were bowled out of for sub 200 totals, the Indian batsmen then proceeded to smash the Pakistani and Sri Lankan bowlers. The truth is that India are a great ODI team, no total is beyond the reach of the Indian batsmen.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • CricIndia208 on November 3, 2013, 9:03 GMT

    I do not agree. In the champions trophy, the Indian bowlers simply blew the opposition out of the park. Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka were bowled out of for sub 200 totals, the Indian batsmen then proceeded to smash the Pakistani and Sri Lankan bowlers. The truth is that India are a great ODI team, no total is beyond the reach of the Indian batsmen.

  • Garp on November 3, 2013, 12:42 GMT

    What did the BCCI expect to happen with the ordering of flat, lifeless, batting tracks instead of an at least fair pitch to bowl on. That is the only blemish on Rohit's double century tbh. The BCCI is so concerned with ticket sales and entertainment that they totally disregard making a match fair and interesting. For me watching a cricket match in any middle eastern country is boring, it isn't cricket, it is a batting demonstration with the odd ball the grips and may do something.

  • Sunrays on November 4, 2013, 1:54 GMT

    Everybody knows India's on-field success is at least partly a function of its off-field power. Many may not want to admit it. Contrast the pitches between the India tours of New Zealand in 2002 and 2009. They obviously had success with the 2002 pitches; why did they have to change it to batting friendly tracks in 2009. Kartikeya has a point here. There will always be exceptions. But the trend is to bow to India's off-field power (as SA did recently).

  • ThatsJustCricket on November 4, 2013, 3:49 GMT

    Yeah right. So, Indian batsmen make truckloads of run in India but that only because the pitches are flat. Well what if they make runs abroad, oh wait, the host country prepared batting friendly pitches for the Indian batters to plunder. What a blinder of a logic. So, the Indian batsmen are never any good wherever they make runs. It's such a pathetic logic, it is not even funny. The reason the average score goes up in matches involving India is simple. The Indian bowlers are useless and let the opposition score more whereas the Indian batters are better in the ODIs than most others so they score more runs against almost any team. Sorry to state the obvious, but it seems like not everyone can see it.

  • mzm149 on November 4, 2013, 8:25 GMT

    Only Amla, de Villiers, Smith, Kallis and DUminy will tell in a month's time that how bad Indian bowling line up is.

  • DingDong420 on November 4, 2013, 13:34 GMT

    Again...why is always about Indian bowlers, the Aussies gave away around 150 in the last 10 overs of last match and nobody talks about their bowlers.

    When India do get pitches that arent as flat as those in India they win the Champions Trophy and win in West Indies etc...

    If you don't like flat pitches go and watch SA play Pak or spend the summer in England

  • on November 4, 2013, 13:42 GMT

    I agree to the statistics what you said but the problem is Indians are not real fast bowlers thinking they are the fast bowlers they try to bowl Yorkers and short pitch if they bowl stump to stump then they can control the runs.

  • on November 5, 2013, 1:43 GMT

    CricIndia208. Huh, talk about being delusional. How did the Indian team fare when Pakistan toured India and consistently bowled out the team cheaply? The pitches had bit of grass and bounce, hence they couldn't handle it. Everyone knows, India has the worst bowling line-up in world cricket. They need to prepare flat wickets to assist their batsman's in order to compete. That's why India struggles to discover any decent fast/spin bowlers.

  • Adam_Leban on November 5, 2013, 1:54 GMT

    @Sunrays. I agree with you completely mate. When India lost the series badly in NZ, they refused to tour for the next five years to avoid another embarrassment. India found pitches and conditions tough to deal with during the 2002-2003 tour and to appease the Indians, NZ cricket caved in and produced slower wickets. I remember, there was lot of flak directed towards the administrators for giving in. Would India prepare bowler friendly wickets when Kiwis tour, don't think so.

  • Adam_Leban on November 5, 2013, 1:57 GMT

    If India is such a great team, why have they never won a series in Aussie? Why do they find it so hard to win matches abroad and play well on pitches, which has extra bit of juice. India's win ratio is very poor abroad and scoring runs on dead wickets means nothing. It doesn't help you grow as a player.