May 10, 2014

Everything you wanted to know about the T20 over

A detailed look into over-wise scoring and dot-ball patterns in T20 internationals
25

Mohammad Amir's final-over maiden against Australia in a T20I, in which five wickets fell, is arguably the most extraordinary over in T20Is
Mohammad Amir's final-over maiden against Australia in a T20I, in which five wickets fell, is arguably the most extraordinary over in T20Is © AFP

An over in a Test match is normally a small incremental step towards building a long innings or planning a dismissal. Seemingly nothing might move for many overs but these are part of a long-term (relatively speaking) plan to achieve progress. Considering both batting and bowling aspects of the game an over is but 0.25% (1 in 400) of a Test match.

A T20 over is a totally different entity. It forms a huge 2.5% (1 in 40) component of a T20 match. An over lost is a big step backwards and couple of overs lost would invariably lead to defeat. I would venture to say that a ball in a T20 match would be approximately equivalent in importance to an over in Test cricket. The planning is almost down to each ball. A dot ball is a resounding success, especially during the late stages, and a four conceded might lead to wild celebrations where a six was needed.

Milind, may the force be with his tribe, has created the ball-by-ball data for almost all 400 T20 international matches. It is complete and is a jewel in my database. We have validated the data together and have in hand now a collection of gold dust. This is especially true for T20s since the T20 analysis is a lot more well-defined and the data lends itself to multiple shades of nuanced analysis. This is the first in a series of such analyses. The unit of analysis is the T20 Over.

Redefinition of the Dot Ball

I have made a very significant and common-sense-based re-definition of one of the pillars of bowling analysis. Henceforth I will treat a dot ball as one in which no run was added to the opposing team. Thus a maiden over comprises of six such tougher-defined dot balls. I am sure most readers will agree with me. The current definition of dot ball and maiden over, which dates back to 1877, is outdated and archaic for the fast-paced T20 game.

A bowler should earn his maiden today. Already we have amendments to the law that do not allow wides and no-balls to be exempt while looking at dot balls and maiden overs. I have simply extended this concept to byes and leg byes. When Dale Steyn bowled six balls to Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir in the league game in the 2012 World T20 in Colombo and conceded five leg byes, he, wonderful bowler though he is, did not deserve a maiden. There is no denying that five runs were accrued to the Indian total, which is all that matters. Interesting sidebar is that India won by a single run. Similarly, Shaun Tait bowled a wonderful first over to Imrul Keyes in a league game in the 2010 World T20. It is classified as a maiden. But he conceded four byes and that was not a dot ball.

One last point to support my definition. A bowler agrees with the wicketkeeper that the third ball will be a googly. The keeper moves down leg side anticipating this. The bowler forgets and bowls a vicious legbreak. There's a good chance it will go for four byes. Whose fault is this? Just a simple example. The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that it is the runs conceded to the other team that matter, not the runs conceded to the batsman. This is to emphasise the team game concept.

I have talked about this in depth since I know that the point will be raised by readers. I will accept and post all such comments but will not change my interpretation. The bowling analysis has already been changed to reflect this. I have 151 maidens and the other scorecards, including ESPNcricinfo, have 192. Of these, 41 overs have had one to five byes/leg byes conceded and thus have been classified by me as non-maiden overs. Good change: makes the maiden that much more treasured.

A look at the most extraordinary overs: Batsman-dominant

Stuart Broad to Yuvraj Singh, 2007: Everyone, and their neighbour's dog, knows about these five minutes of madness. Broad bowled six balls, mostly of good length, and was sent over the fence six times by Yuvraj Singh, then at the peak of his form. Four of these were on the on side and two over the off-side ropes. I have always felt that Broad could have bowled a deliberate wide, if nothing else, at least to break the rhythm of Yuvraj. But then history would not have been made in a very symmetric fashion.

Wayne Parnell to Jos Buttler, 2012: The sequence of events, fairly self-explanatory, ran thus: 6, 6, 2, nb+0, nb+4, 4, 6 and 2. A disjointed sequence, but England moved from 74 to 106 in this 11-over match, and won comfortably.

Izatullah Dawlatzai vs England, 2012: The sequence was Buttler 4, Buttler lbw, Jonny Bairstow nb+6, nb+1, Luke Wright 6, 6, 6 and 1. England, not exactly moving the world at 155 for 3 in 18, suddenly propelled to 187 for 5 at the end of the 19th over.

Daryl Tuffey to Ricky Ponting, 2005: This was the very first T20I match played, and Ponting took Tuffey to the cleaners to the tune of 6, 2, 6, 6, 4 and 6. Tuffey never really recovered from this mauling.

Bilawal Bhatti vs Australia, 2014: This was in the recent World T20. Aaron Finch scored 4 and 1 and then Glenn Maxwell took over with 4, 6, 6, nb+4 and 4. The irony was that this was in the eighth over. Australia moved from 72 for 2 to 102 for 2 in eight overs. They needed 90 runs in 12 overs but messed up the chase and lost. Bhatti redeemed himself when he was entrusted with the last over. He conceded only six runs and captured two wickets.

A look at the most extraordinary overs: Bowler-dominant - through wickets

Mohammad Amir vs Australia, 2010: I consider this to be the most incredible over in T20I history. Do I hear Yuvraj's 36 against Broad? Excellent credentials indeed. But I feel a move from 191 for 5 to 191 all out during the course of a single over gets the biscuit. I will always take the side of the bowlers anyhow. And the opponents were Australia and established batsmen were at the crease. The sequence was Brad Haddin caught, Mitchell Johnson bowled, Michael Hussey run out, Steven Smith run out, Tait dot ball and Tait bowled. Five dismissals, three wickets to the bowler, six dot balls, this was the Twilight Zone.

RP Singh vs New Zealand, 2007: The sequence was Daniel Vettori bowled, Shane Bond 4, Bond run out, Craig McMillan 1, McMillan run out and Jeetan Patel run out. New Zealand moved from 185 for 6 to 190 all out. But still won the match.

Doug Bracewell vs Zimbabwe, 2011: Forster Mutizwa 1, Mutizwa run out, Ray Price run out, Kyle Jarvis caught and Chris Mpofu caught (5 balls). Bracewell hastened the end of Zimbabwe innings getting rid of four batsmen in five balls.

Haseeb Amjad vs Nepal, 2014: Malla 6, Malla 2, Malla c&b, Vesawkar run out, 1 bye and Budayair run out.

Al-Amin Hossain vs West Indies, 2014: Marlon Samuels caught, Andre Russell caught, 1 bye, Dwayne Bravo caught, 1 bye, Denesh Ramdin run out.

Now let us have a look at the table containing key indices for the 20 overs. This is a massive table containing around ten key indices for each over. Detailed interpretation of this table could run to pages. So a brief commentary is provided.

First, an explanation of the number of matches covered and the base numbers. Out of 400 matches played so far, two matches (26 and 68) were abandoned after the toss. Two matches (9 and 335) do not have ball-by-ball data available. In two matches (273 & 318), no second innings was played. So we have ball-by-ball data for 396 matches and 790 innings. Out of these 790, two innings (119 and 318) lasted four and two balls respectively. So the number of first overs is 789. The rest follow based on this.

T20 Over indices: By over
Over#Overs20+ Runs10+ Runs4 Runs or lessMaidensDot Balls/OverRpOBpWWktsMax Runs
1 789 0.25%16.85%37.50% 3.17% 3.43 6.0824.7 192 24
2 788 0.89%25.12%35.02% 2.54% 3.19 6.8322.6 209 25
3 787 1.02%30.63%25.80% 1.02% 2.92 7.6121.5 220 25
4 786 1.02%31.53%22.63% 1.78% 2.78 7.7720.1 235 23
5 785 1.91%31.59%26.24% 1.40% 2.72 7.8922.3 211 27
6 782 0.90%31.97%26.98% 2.43% 2.73 7.7020.4 230 22
7 779 0.39%19.52%37.38% 0.77% 2.33 6.4123.5 199 22
8 773 0.91%19.41%33.25% 0.78% 2.27 6.7123.4 198 30
9 769 0.26%18.86%31.09% 0.91% 2.23 6.6822.6 204 24
10 762 0.79%22.71%29.27% 0.13% 2.07 7.0123.1 198 32
11 758 0.92%22.55%29.41% 0.79% 2.11 6.9718.9 241 25
12 752 0.93%25.78%27.11% 0.53% 2.01 7.4023.6 191 28
13 747 1.61%28.93%26.65% 0.27% 1.98 7.5919.5 230 25
14 739 0.54%26.52%25.30% 0.68% 1.99 7.4818.7 237 21
15 726 1.65%28.91%26.43% 0.69% 2.05 7.7315.8 276 26
16 708 2.40%32.05%26.12% 0.56% 1.89 8.0214.9 286 28
17 686 2.48%39.23%18.67% 0.58% 1.82 8.7413.8 299 24
18 658 2.74%36.49%23.26% 0.30% 1.83 8.5111.7 337 27
19 605 2.98%44.63%21.32% 0.17% 1.79 9.37 9.9 365 36
20 519 3.27%43.70%17.52% 0.38% 1.63 9.92 6.8 456 29
All14699 1.32%28.29%27.70% 1.03% 2.32 7.5517.65014 36

The number of overs has already been explained. One additional point: 19.4 and 18.4 overs will add to 38.2, not 39. In other words the overs are converted to balls, added and then converted back. This is done to get an accurate measure when doing the percentage calculations and per over values.

Only two of the first overs went for above 20 runs while as many as 17 of the last overs went for above 20 runs. As expected, the 20th over leads the table in this regard. The total number of such overs is 194. In other words, an average of one 20-plus over every two matches. The pattern is a slow increase, with one exception. Look at the drop in the ninth over. From seven occurrences in the eighth over, the figure drops to two in the ninth over and then jumps to six in the 10th over. And look at the jump in the 13th over and abrupt drop in the 14th over.

The ten-plus runs numbers follow a similar increasing pattern to the 20-plus-run overs except that the kinks in the curve as seen in the ninth, 13th and 14th overs do not exist. The abrupt drop in the seventh over is clearly a result of the removal of field restrictions. Look at the last few overs. Nearly half the overs are ten-plus run overs. Some people might even argue that they expect more.

The four-and-below run overs represent the tight overs. As expected the first over leads the field. Three out of eight first overs have had only four or fewer runs taken off. Let me remind the readers that these refer to team runs: that means including all extras. That the seventh over comes close to the first one should not surprise anyone. But there is a surprise in the 17th over. Why is there a big drop from the 16th? Are the teams which have lost around five wickets or so trying to play safe to ensure that they can go on an all-out attack mode in the last three overs.

I will cover fascinating topic of maidens in depth in the next part of the article. Here I will refer to the overall percentage figures. As expected, maidens occur most frequently in the first over: just short of one every three innings. This drops very drastically to 2.5% in the second over and then to 1% in the third over. Goes upto 2.4% in the sixth over and then a huge drop to 0.77% in the seventh over. The figures keeps on dropping to the lowest at 0.17% in the 19th over and then to 0.38% in the last over. The last figure is misleading. It only indicates two maidens, as against one, the previous over. The overall percentage value is 1%, meaning one every five innings. But it is a rather steady decline, overall.

Now we come to Dot Balls per over. The overall figure is 2.32. But this starts with a fairly high 3.43 in the first over through to 1.73 in the last over. It is interesting to note that there is no great variation in this measure. It is possible that in the early stages the non-dot-balls are ones and twos while in the later stages these are boundaries.

We now come to the most important measure here: the average Runs per Over. The average across 400 matches is 7.55. The first over is a fairly low 6.1 and quickly reaches the average in the third over. Then this value drops off drastically in the seventh over and takes a further seven overs to pick up. The last two overs are above nine and the last over is fast approaching ten. However this figure is only over 500 overs as against the 6.1 over 789 overs. There are no major surprises here.

The number of wickets, which fell in the specific overs, is less relevant than the balls per wicket figure since the number of overs figure varies a lot. This figure, surprisingly, has a choppy ride. It starts off with an understandable 24-plus (once in four first overs) for first over to 20 for the sixth over. Then there is a sharp increase in the seventh over as caution takes over and the fielders are banished to the outfields. Even within the first group, see the sudden increase in over No. 5. Afterwards the value drops steadily from over No. 7 to 10. Then there is a completely inexplicable sudden drop in over No. 11 and a sudden increase in over No. 12. From over 15 onwards the number drops abruptly to a value of around 6.8 for over No. 20: a wicket in the last over of every match. Quite a performance indeed.

The final column lists maximum runs conceded. I have already written about the 36-run over and the 30-plus run overs. The 32-run over was the 11th of the innings and the 36-run over was the 19th. Most other overs have the 20s as their highest run count. For reasons not clear the 14th over has the lowest high score: a mere 21. Possibly the lull before the storm in the 16-20 overs.

The graph below is self-explanatory.

It is clear that the Dot balls per over graph follows a steady downward trend with a slight variation at the six-to-seven over mark. The range is in a narrow band of 3.4 to 1.6. The Runs per over graph is a more volatile one with clear pronounced drops at over no 6 and 18. But the trend is reasonably similar to the Dot balls per over graph.

However the Balls per wicket graph moves like a yo-yo for no ostensible reason, until over No. 12. Afterwards there is a continued drop until over No. 20. It is virtually impossible for me to describe the movements between overs three and 12. And let us not forget that nearly 400 matches have been played across venues and during ten years. So we have data for either side of 700 overs.

Finally a few interesting extracts from the huge T20-Over Matrix file I have uploaded are given below. You could download this file and extract more of these gems.

Innings in which there were three overs with 20+ runs.
Match 202: Sri Lanka vs Australia
Match 268: England vs Afghanistan
Match 328: Australia vs England
Match 377: Netherlands vs Ireland

Innings in which there were 14/15 overs with ten-plus runs.
Match 13: Australia vs England. 15 overs
Match 127: Sri Lanka vs India. 14 overs

Innings in which there were 15 overs with 4 runs or less.
Match 67: Bermuda vs Canada. 15 overs
Match 27: Kenya vs Sri Lanka. 15 overs
Match 64: Ireland vs Kenya 15 overs + 13 overs for Kenya. Total 28 overs

I have created a veritable treasure house of information in the form of an Excel sheet. This is a 796 by 26 worksheet that contains the runs conceded by over and the 4/5 derived values for each over in each innings. The analytically minded can download the Excel sheet and really go to town. To download/view this Excel sheet, please CLICK HERE.

In the next part of the article I will have a comprehensive look at the three over-groups. The start phase (1-6 overs), consolidation phase (7-15) and the finish phase (16-20). I will also look at the fascinating subject of maiden overs: my new definition, not the pseudo one currently under force.

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

  • Katey on May 11, 2014, 6:06 GMT

    Anantha, you state, "The abrupt drop in the seventh over is clearly a result of the removal of field restrictions." A contributing factor may be that this is often when the bowling team brings on it's spinners. Of course, it's correct to attribute this to the removal of field restrictions too! So I'm not really disagreeing with you.
    [[
    You are correct in that the spinners really do bring down the scoring. The RpO table in T20-Intls has Senanayake, Badree, Vettori and Narain, Varaiya, Shenwari and Price, all spinners, as the top-7. And 14 of the top-15 are spinners, the sole exception being Boyd Rankin. Maybe your reason that it is the introduction of spinners in the seventh over is really the reason for this drop is more valid than the Powerplay end.
    Ananth
    ]]
    What was the original purpose of the Powerplay, do you know? I vaguely remember it being introduced as a way of speeding up the first few overs of a game, which tended to be slow and cautious as the openers got their eye in. But I don't really remember. At any rate, looking at these figures, I'm not sure it's worked all that well ... though maybe without restricted fielding it would have been worse. Any comment on this?
    [[
    Powerplay had its origins in the ODI format where the initial overs were certainly slower. In T20s I really do not see the need for Powerplay at all. Any team worth its salt would anyhow go for wickets. They do not have to be told to keep close-in fielders. That Maxwell-led move from 69 in 10 to 231 in 20 was indeed frightening. So Powerplay could very well be scrapped.
    But this phase certainly belongs to the second part of the article in which I will be looking at the over groups.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 11, 2014, 3:03 GMT

    Ananth, great analysis! You have a picture on top of the page in which you look very angry. Would be nice to see you smiling. Also you could show some tact in responding to comments. You seem to take negative comments personally. It is your choice in how you respond since this is your blog. However people on the internet are trolls, they just do it to rile you up. A professional well headed person would show some tact and avoid the trollers.
    [[
    Andrew, I am level-headed but not a professional person. What really bugs me is someone's comment after a 2-minute surface reading of an article in which I have spent a week. If they do it deliberately to rile me up, they have succeeded. But it would be like riling up Steyn (not that there is anything common between us: If I throw I can barely reach 50 mph!!!). He is unlikely to bowl a half volley on the leg stump if a batsman gives him the lip. The batsman better be prepared for the riposte. Just as the commenter here.
    Ananth
    ]]
    Also Ankit Gadora, I found Ananth's analysis very helpful. He is doing this for people who want to see such an analysis and for whom it's not as apparent. If you think it is obvious and apparent then don't bother reading it. No one is forcing you to read it. Clearly Ananth enjoys the game otherwise he won't go through the trouble of doing such a wonderful analysis.
    [[
    But one thing I will contest. There are very very few Cricinfo writers who read readers' comments. I am one. I do not take informed negative comments personally. If you take the trouble to read the article completely, understand it and then tear me to shreds, I will, without fail, publish your comments. I have done so often.
    In any case, thanks for the nice words. One such comment compensates for 10 nasty ones.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 11, 2014, 2:53 GMT

    Ananth, I have a question about this part of the article (quoting article below): As expected, maidens occur most frequently in the first over: just short of one every three innings. This drops very drastically to 2.5% in the second over and then to 1% in the third over. The first over percentage of maidens is 3.17%. How is this just short of one every three innings? It would take ~33 first overs to get a maiden. Which means a a maiden every ~33 innings, not 3. Can you please clarify, what you are trying to say? I don't get your point. It must be something I am missing.
    [[
    No, Andrew. I am the one who has chopped a slow full toss outside the off stump on to the stumps.
    There have been 25 maidens in the first over. Across 789 overs this works out to 3.17%. Until now it is fine. The full toss has just been bowled.
    This works out to once in 31 innings and not once in 3 innings. I hate the fairly crude phrase "my bad" but that is that. Or more aptly, "my blunder". I hear the stump rattling and my sincere apologies to all the readers (and my captain).
    Thanks for pointing it out.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • ThinkingCricket on May 10, 2014, 9:40 GMT

    I Couldn't agree more with your definition of maidens, the point shouldn't be who got the runs, but whether there were runs at all.
    [[
    The current definition probably suits Test matches. But certainly not ODIs and T20s.
    Ananth
    ]]
    On a similar note, I suppose won't make much of a difference, but they should have 'Runs at crease' as a stat for batsmen, instead of runs. Including byes, leg-byes and wides, which batsmen often have a significant impact on would lead to a (very slightly) more accurate picture.
    [[
    Interesting idea. But a ball bowled wide down the leg side going for 5 wides can hardly be credited to the batsman. But I can certainly do it as an interesting stats variation.
    Ananth
    ]]
    I am confident that if one filtered data to teams batting 1st (batting 2nd introduces too many strategic considerations that change their strategy) one would observe that teams that won are likely to outscore those that particularly in the middle overs. To my mind, going hard throughout the innings is one of the stand out characteristics of champion T-20 sides.
    [[
    Next article covers the phase. Although, as of now, I have so much analysis in front of me that I have not got the result in.
    Ananth
    ]]
    Another interesting area of research would be to see the impact of wicket fall on these rates.
    [[
    Again that requires a different analysis. Not a broad analysis but a deeper analysis at the wicket falling times. Can certainly be done.Thanks for a nice set of comments.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • ww56 on May 12, 2014, 19:00 GMT

    Dear Sir, In your articles,you provide all sorts of figures.They will show that Bradman's avge should be reduced by 20-25%,Tendulkar 100 intl. centuries is not equal to Richards 30,or Lara's 40 intl.centuries....Murali's wkts is not equal to O'Reilly's... Could you give some stats to settle this:Your 'bio' has '... His other passion is tennis, and he thinks Roger Federer is the greatest sportsman to have walked on earth. "Recently,Agassi stated that Nadal is the no.1 greatest,Federer #2.Two yrs ago,American Tennis channel picked Federer #1,Nadal was #6. Using some stats,win/lose, masters titles,playing opponent,5 sets....the figures you uniquely know how to analyze, and compute could you write an article to settle the GOAT argument for tennis.You may include the women in the figures too. Just to let you know that I think that SRT was the greatest sportsman.Greatest and sportsman...and walked as real dictionary meanings. Thank you sir. I am quivering for your reply.
    [[
    Thanks for your taking time to pen a comment. Unfortunately, I am not quivering to do what you want me to do.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 12, 2014, 18:23 GMT

    I think you misunderstood. I meant it was 187/4 at the end of the 19th over.
    [[
    Yes, you are on the dot. The score moved from 155 for 4 to 187 for 5 at the end of 19th. Then 9 runs were added in the 20th. The irony is that during the course of this momentous over of 30 runs, Buttler found time to be out lbw to Izatullah.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 12, 2014, 13:38 GMT

    That graph you posted is something very interesting and good to just know. But, i don't see any point of this analysis at all. Mainly because T20 is game where you just have to play the situation. Batsman would try to take 4,5 single off 10th over if Malinga or Ajmal is bowling, but same batsman on same game would try to take 15 runs out of it if Pollard or Russel bowling.
    [[
    There is no way you can generalize like that. Yesterday Chahal went for 4 in 16th and Starc for 23 in the next over. Today Bumrah went for 6 in the 18th over and Malinga for 15 in the 19th. The idea is to acquire additional knowledge. And have fun. Many followers would not have known that a bowler (Md. Amir) captured/assisted in 5 wickets in one over. Also that an over no 8 went for 30 but the batting team lost.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • saptarshirocks on May 12, 2014, 13:29 GMT

    More wickets in 11th over: It might be psychological that after 10th over batsman feel this is business end of innings and suddenly they need to step up the run rate, resulting in more wickets. It might be interesting to compare 1st and 2nd innings data. In first inning If start is good for 1st 10 over they access wicket is good and they need more, hence more risk taking. Or in case of slow start , they might feel it's time to move on . This might all be related with 10th over is the time when teams normally analyze there situation. And as it seems, this analysis not doing any good for them !
    [[
    The problem is that with so many data elements floating around, it is difficult to go further down to more levels. Presentation becomes a problem. But first/second innings comparison is a good idea.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • T20Fun on May 12, 2014, 13:18 GMT

    Wonderful analysis. What about rain-shortened games? Have there been too many of them or are they really inconsequential to affect the figures?
    [[
    Out of 398, only 17 games have been affected by rain and D/L used. So it is a relatively low % and I have made sure that the overs/phase work are properly taken care of. Nothing special for D/L.
    Ananth
    ]]
    Also have you seen any difference in patterns country-wise i.e. West Indies approaching it differently to say Sri Lanka or India?
    [[
    Tough question since the whole thing is quite subjective. Also there are not enough number of matches. But now that I have the phase level numbers I could do something about it.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 12, 2014, 12:11 GMT

    I've come up with a new method of D/L for T20s, target for team batting 2nd is: ((final score/2) +45)*number of overs team 2 /number of overs team 1 + (score-((final score/2) +45))/(number of overs team 1/number of overs team 2)^((final score/2 +45) / final score). Round and add 1 for the target.
    [[
    Can you apply this for the Delhi-Hyderabad match. Forget about the many interruptions. Delhi: 143 in 20. What is your target for Hyderabad in 5 overs?
    Ananth
    ]]

  • Katey on May 11, 2014, 6:06 GMT

    Anantha, you state, "The abrupt drop in the seventh over is clearly a result of the removal of field restrictions." A contributing factor may be that this is often when the bowling team brings on it's spinners. Of course, it's correct to attribute this to the removal of field restrictions too! So I'm not really disagreeing with you.
    [[
    You are correct in that the spinners really do bring down the scoring. The RpO table in T20-Intls has Senanayake, Badree, Vettori and Narain, Varaiya, Shenwari and Price, all spinners, as the top-7. And 14 of the top-15 are spinners, the sole exception being Boyd Rankin. Maybe your reason that it is the introduction of spinners in the seventh over is really the reason for this drop is more valid than the Powerplay end.
    Ananth
    ]]
    What was the original purpose of the Powerplay, do you know? I vaguely remember it being introduced as a way of speeding up the first few overs of a game, which tended to be slow and cautious as the openers got their eye in. But I don't really remember. At any rate, looking at these figures, I'm not sure it's worked all that well ... though maybe without restricted fielding it would have been worse. Any comment on this?
    [[
    Powerplay had its origins in the ODI format where the initial overs were certainly slower. In T20s I really do not see the need for Powerplay at all. Any team worth its salt would anyhow go for wickets. They do not have to be told to keep close-in fielders. That Maxwell-led move from 69 in 10 to 231 in 20 was indeed frightening. So Powerplay could very well be scrapped.
    But this phase certainly belongs to the second part of the article in which I will be looking at the over groups.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 11, 2014, 3:03 GMT

    Ananth, great analysis! You have a picture on top of the page in which you look very angry. Would be nice to see you smiling. Also you could show some tact in responding to comments. You seem to take negative comments personally. It is your choice in how you respond since this is your blog. However people on the internet are trolls, they just do it to rile you up. A professional well headed person would show some tact and avoid the trollers.
    [[
    Andrew, I am level-headed but not a professional person. What really bugs me is someone's comment after a 2-minute surface reading of an article in which I have spent a week. If they do it deliberately to rile me up, they have succeeded. But it would be like riling up Steyn (not that there is anything common between us: If I throw I can barely reach 50 mph!!!). He is unlikely to bowl a half volley on the leg stump if a batsman gives him the lip. The batsman better be prepared for the riposte. Just as the commenter here.
    Ananth
    ]]
    Also Ankit Gadora, I found Ananth's analysis very helpful. He is doing this for people who want to see such an analysis and for whom it's not as apparent. If you think it is obvious and apparent then don't bother reading it. No one is forcing you to read it. Clearly Ananth enjoys the game otherwise he won't go through the trouble of doing such a wonderful analysis.
    [[
    But one thing I will contest. There are very very few Cricinfo writers who read readers' comments. I am one. I do not take informed negative comments personally. If you take the trouble to read the article completely, understand it and then tear me to shreds, I will, without fail, publish your comments. I have done so often.
    In any case, thanks for the nice words. One such comment compensates for 10 nasty ones.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 11, 2014, 2:53 GMT

    Ananth, I have a question about this part of the article (quoting article below): As expected, maidens occur most frequently in the first over: just short of one every three innings. This drops very drastically to 2.5% in the second over and then to 1% in the third over. The first over percentage of maidens is 3.17%. How is this just short of one every three innings? It would take ~33 first overs to get a maiden. Which means a a maiden every ~33 innings, not 3. Can you please clarify, what you are trying to say? I don't get your point. It must be something I am missing.
    [[
    No, Andrew. I am the one who has chopped a slow full toss outside the off stump on to the stumps.
    There have been 25 maidens in the first over. Across 789 overs this works out to 3.17%. Until now it is fine. The full toss has just been bowled.
    This works out to once in 31 innings and not once in 3 innings. I hate the fairly crude phrase "my bad" but that is that. Or more aptly, "my blunder". I hear the stump rattling and my sincere apologies to all the readers (and my captain).
    Thanks for pointing it out.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • ThinkingCricket on May 10, 2014, 9:40 GMT

    I Couldn't agree more with your definition of maidens, the point shouldn't be who got the runs, but whether there were runs at all.
    [[
    The current definition probably suits Test matches. But certainly not ODIs and T20s.
    Ananth
    ]]
    On a similar note, I suppose won't make much of a difference, but they should have 'Runs at crease' as a stat for batsmen, instead of runs. Including byes, leg-byes and wides, which batsmen often have a significant impact on would lead to a (very slightly) more accurate picture.
    [[
    Interesting idea. But a ball bowled wide down the leg side going for 5 wides can hardly be credited to the batsman. But I can certainly do it as an interesting stats variation.
    Ananth
    ]]
    I am confident that if one filtered data to teams batting 1st (batting 2nd introduces too many strategic considerations that change their strategy) one would observe that teams that won are likely to outscore those that particularly in the middle overs. To my mind, going hard throughout the innings is one of the stand out characteristics of champion T-20 sides.
    [[
    Next article covers the phase. Although, as of now, I have so much analysis in front of me that I have not got the result in.
    Ananth
    ]]
    Another interesting area of research would be to see the impact of wicket fall on these rates.
    [[
    Again that requires a different analysis. Not a broad analysis but a deeper analysis at the wicket falling times. Can certainly be done.Thanks for a nice set of comments.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • ww56 on May 12, 2014, 19:00 GMT

    Dear Sir, In your articles,you provide all sorts of figures.They will show that Bradman's avge should be reduced by 20-25%,Tendulkar 100 intl. centuries is not equal to Richards 30,or Lara's 40 intl.centuries....Murali's wkts is not equal to O'Reilly's... Could you give some stats to settle this:Your 'bio' has '... His other passion is tennis, and he thinks Roger Federer is the greatest sportsman to have walked on earth. "Recently,Agassi stated that Nadal is the no.1 greatest,Federer #2.Two yrs ago,American Tennis channel picked Federer #1,Nadal was #6. Using some stats,win/lose, masters titles,playing opponent,5 sets....the figures you uniquely know how to analyze, and compute could you write an article to settle the GOAT argument for tennis.You may include the women in the figures too. Just to let you know that I think that SRT was the greatest sportsman.Greatest and sportsman...and walked as real dictionary meanings. Thank you sir. I am quivering for your reply.
    [[
    Thanks for your taking time to pen a comment. Unfortunately, I am not quivering to do what you want me to do.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 12, 2014, 18:23 GMT

    I think you misunderstood. I meant it was 187/4 at the end of the 19th over.
    [[
    Yes, you are on the dot. The score moved from 155 for 4 to 187 for 5 at the end of 19th. Then 9 runs were added in the 20th. The irony is that during the course of this momentous over of 30 runs, Buttler found time to be out lbw to Izatullah.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 12, 2014, 13:38 GMT

    That graph you posted is something very interesting and good to just know. But, i don't see any point of this analysis at all. Mainly because T20 is game where you just have to play the situation. Batsman would try to take 4,5 single off 10th over if Malinga or Ajmal is bowling, but same batsman on same game would try to take 15 runs out of it if Pollard or Russel bowling.
    [[
    There is no way you can generalize like that. Yesterday Chahal went for 4 in 16th and Starc for 23 in the next over. Today Bumrah went for 6 in the 18th over and Malinga for 15 in the 19th. The idea is to acquire additional knowledge. And have fun. Many followers would not have known that a bowler (Md. Amir) captured/assisted in 5 wickets in one over. Also that an over no 8 went for 30 but the batting team lost.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • saptarshirocks on May 12, 2014, 13:29 GMT

    More wickets in 11th over: It might be psychological that after 10th over batsman feel this is business end of innings and suddenly they need to step up the run rate, resulting in more wickets. It might be interesting to compare 1st and 2nd innings data. In first inning If start is good for 1st 10 over they access wicket is good and they need more, hence more risk taking. Or in case of slow start , they might feel it's time to move on . This might all be related with 10th over is the time when teams normally analyze there situation. And as it seems, this analysis not doing any good for them !
    [[
    The problem is that with so many data elements floating around, it is difficult to go further down to more levels. Presentation becomes a problem. But first/second innings comparison is a good idea.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • T20Fun on May 12, 2014, 13:18 GMT

    Wonderful analysis. What about rain-shortened games? Have there been too many of them or are they really inconsequential to affect the figures?
    [[
    Out of 398, only 17 games have been affected by rain and D/L used. So it is a relatively low % and I have made sure that the overs/phase work are properly taken care of. Nothing special for D/L.
    Ananth
    ]]
    Also have you seen any difference in patterns country-wise i.e. West Indies approaching it differently to say Sri Lanka or India?
    [[
    Tough question since the whole thing is quite subjective. Also there are not enough number of matches. But now that I have the phase level numbers I could do something about it.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 12, 2014, 12:11 GMT

    I've come up with a new method of D/L for T20s, target for team batting 2nd is: ((final score/2) +45)*number of overs team 2 /number of overs team 1 + (score-((final score/2) +45))/(number of overs team 1/number of overs team 2)^((final score/2 +45) / final score). Round and add 1 for the target.
    [[
    Can you apply this for the Delhi-Hyderabad match. Forget about the many interruptions. Delhi: 143 in 20. What is your target for Hyderabad in 5 overs?
    Ananth
    ]]

  • Chinthaka_Dassanayake on May 12, 2014, 11:08 GMT

    The drop from 16th to 17th over occurs because that's the time the death bowlers, usually the best bowlers in the side, come on. For example, almost invariably, for SL Malinga comes to bowl in the 17th over. For SA, its Steyn. See if you filter the stats for SL with malinga bolwing the 17th and you'll see a huge drop.

  • gmsjgmsj on May 12, 2014, 7:28 GMT

    While there is some logic in your definition of a maiden over in T20 or IDI format, it cannot be an all pervasive one. Let us go back to why byes and leg byes were always added to the extras. A run was scored but not of the bowler. Therefore it belonged entirely to the batting team's kitty. The bowler was never penalised.
    [[
    I have never said that the bowler should or should not be penalized. I have only said that I will not consider a "run-ball" as a dot ball. Period.
    Ananth
    ]]
    Needless to say, even a batsman's are added to his name first and then goes on to be consolidated against his team's total. My humble take is that this early logic is unshakeable and does not depend on the format of the game. Further, the batting objective in any form is to score more runs than your opponent in a lesser time frame/balls (even tests arent timeless!). The bowling objective is to bowl out the opponent or take such of his wickets which will prevent him from chasing down his target. Maybe you can give a metric on the runs scored in proportion to opponent wickets taken in T20 form (overall and individual). It should indicate the most successful teams.
    [[
    But the format says that a score of 150 all out will defeat a score of 149 for 1. The first team will have a RpW value of 15 and the second team, a RpW value of 149. So wickets form part of a strategy but do not meany anything in measuring the teams nor in deciding on results.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 12, 2014, 6:34 GMT

    Hi Ananth - Great insights. I must commend your ability to be a Roman in Rome and you have, like ABD and his tribe, adapted to this newborn monster of cricket and have found some meaning to it. I am disillusioned by the mushrooming levels of T20 games (at all levels) - bilateral T20I series, T20 WC, big bother (typo intended) IPL and 12,134,378,980+ xPLs across the globe. Somehow, I feel we are ignoring FC cricket (including the side-games which teams play during tours as valuable warm-up). Our old mate ShrikanthK is absent in these threads. I know its difficult. But can you do a different analysis of FC games (restricting it to the tour games which teams play). I know all FC cricket would be next to impossible. But I still feel some analysis on FC cricket at tour game level would be different (would show how a team subsequently won / lost a side game or how side games help/don't help) or however. . . . Dravid, Ganguly etc forced their way by making use of these side games. . .
    [[
    Ranga, the tour FC games are farces. Nowadays we have two-day tour games with 15 players each and anyone can bat or bowl. Olden days, India was finding it difficult to avoid a loss to Surrey or the English team lost to New South Wales or the Australian team managed to defeat Barbodas, There were real FC games. Even 20 years back, there was some seriousness in these.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • Rally_Windies on May 12, 2014, 6:15 GMT

    rizwan1981

    Ambrose was King of ODI econ rates ...

    In Ambrose's era... batsmen dominated and Scoring had gone up to 270ish per game...

    In Garner and Hadlee's Era ..... 230ish was the modal score

    If you look at the list of ODI Econ rates..

    Ambrose's name sticks up sorely in the Mix of names of the bygone era, with NONE of his contemporaries anywhere close to him ...

    There was an analysis done before, which attempts to compare eras .... And for some reason, Ambrose was left out... But that was in Tests ... If the same was done For ODI ... Ambrose would easily be the # 1 bowler
    [[
    Will do it soon, with adjustment for the period scores.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • rizwan1981 on May 11, 2014, 19:24 GMT

    Ananth , I would know the bowlers with the best CAREER economy rate in the last 5 overs in T 20 and ODI ? Would the usual suspects Narine and Steyn be the leaders in T 20 and Garner , McGrath and Akram in the corresponding table for the ODI s ?
    [[
    Requires some work and will put it on the plate. The next part of this article has a clear theme and I would not want to mention this important information in passing.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • WalkingWicket11 on May 11, 2014, 13:19 GMT

    I want to add one more point in favour of your definition of dot ball. While extra runs don't contribute to the batsman's score, they do contribute to his morale and relieve some pressure.

    For example, suppose team batting first is at 100/4 after 15 overs. If there's a new batsman (perhaps facing his first ball), he would be under immense pressure as he is expected to go all guns blazing right away. With 4 leg byes off the 1st ball, he would certainly feel a lot better facing the next ball than a "swing and miss dot ball", even though his own score is 0 not out in both cases. The effect is more pronounced when chasing.

    In a Test match, this doesn't matter much since *usually* the batsman is not in a "race" to score quickly.
    [[
    Good point. It is my considered conclusion that 4/5 wides/noballs/byes/legbyes do more damage to the bowling team than a six.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • SLSup on May 11, 2014, 5:36 GMT

    Now this is the kind of analysis players and officials alike can chew on. Time well spent producing valuable insight into t20's where, both, enthusiasts and critics can find something to mull over. Unless, of course, you are Ankit Godara who pretends to know everything there is to know about t20s. I am not entirely convinced if leg-byes and byes should be counted against a bowler though you have already conceded you will not change your mind on it : ) Ideally byes and leg-byes may nullify a maiden (counted against team) but need not necessarily be counted against the runs conceded by the bowler. But, then, someone could say "what about misfields and overthrows that count against bowlers?" Or a wrong no-ball or wide call by an Ump. Also, in your example, what if the bowler remembers the 3rd ball googly but the wicket-keeper forgets! Should that count against bowler. But, then, if it counts aainst the team isn't the bowler part of the team? : ) I give up!
    [[
    No, I am not even saying that the byes/legbyes should count against the bowler. That is a separate topic. My re-definition is solely for the purpose of definition of dot balls and maidens, that is all. I agree one follows the other but this is a cleaner and clearer interpretation.
    Misfields, overthrows and dropped catches are not recorded. A dropped catch could also save runs. And so on.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • Mr.CricketJKNotHussey on May 11, 2014, 5:34 GMT

    Great article and I know you have your own opinion about the dot ball criteria but I don't feel its completely fair. I agree with the example you gave, if a bowler sets the field/WK in a certain way and doesn't bowl according to it, it is his fault if he goes for byes. However, more often than not, byes and leg byes are conceded because the bowler legitimately beat the batsman. They occur because the batsman could not read the ball properly and got lucky enough to hit it with his body or that it beat everyone including the keeper. Sometimes a deflection of the leg makes it impossible even for the keeper to get it. So, I feel like on average, the bowlers should not be punished for this, its still good bowling just hard luck. Besides, bowlers get punished for edges all the time through no fault of their own so I feel like this rule balances it out.
    [[
    Pl see my reply to SlSup.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 11, 2014, 5:23 GMT

    Great analysis.. I am not trying to nit pick but in "Izatullah Dawlatzai vs England, 2012" the final score was 187/4 and not 187/5.
    [[
    No, both of us are wrong. The final score was 197 for 5.
    Ananth
    ]]
    I know this is irrelevant to this article, but I am officially lodging my complaint against DL here. In my opinion the match should be called a tie if the DL victory margin s close. Will it be possible for you analyse, how many times the DL victors changed over the course of the game and how long were the eventual winners ahead of the DL par score during the match.? In other words I would like to know the statistical significance of DL predicting the right winner especially for close matches. I understand, a team DL predicting the winners if the batting batting second is 80/5 at 20 overs chasing 360, but i certainly have a problem if DL predicts the result if they were chasing 220. Ideally, for me DL can predict the winner if only if the DL score is beaten comprehensively and i think statistical analysis will us define 'comprehensive'
    [[
    I can take or leave D/L. I know Milind thinks it is quite a good system. I will let him respond to you.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 11, 2014, 5:03 GMT

    Ananth, Thanks for your great analysis. This is my favorite blog in ESPNcrickinfo. And I wish you all the best for your future articles. As a Sri Lankan, my favorite articles were the articles about Test bowlers where Murali dominated them at the top with some other all time great bowlers too. Thank you and keep this good work going!!!

  • on May 10, 2014, 18:38 GMT

    you should do a point about different bowlers who are successful in T20 and reasoning. Likewise for batsmen

  • sa03r on May 10, 2014, 11:26 GMT

    Great analysis, Ananth, as always. Being a Pakistani, I tend to agree that Amir's over was "..the most incredible over in T20I history." But in the context of the game it made little impact. Aussies had already piled up a formidable total which proved to be match-winning.
    [[
    Yes, I agree. Just as Bilawal Bhatti's recent 30-run over did not cost the Pakistan team as much as expected.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 10, 2014, 9:33 GMT

    Why don't u just enjoy the game..lol..unnecessary analysis....all things u revealed were already apparent.
    [[
    Wonderful. Since everything is apparent to you, I will set three questions for you to answer.
    What is the average score reached in the first 6 overs of the match, and how many wickets?
    Has a maiden over ever been bowled to Gayle. If yes, who was the bowler.
    What is the average RpO for the 18th over in the first innings for teams which won the match?
    The point, obviously not understood by you with your surface and shallow reading, is that all these questions require the availability of the ball-by-ball data.
    LOL, on my side.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • athreya83 on May 10, 2014, 8:33 GMT

    Isn't a over 1/450 in a test match? 90 per day for 5 days equals 450 right..Me missing something simple here?
    [[
    I have gone on the basis that the average number of hours required for a Test match result is 400.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • aleem.abn on May 10, 2014, 8:28 GMT

    Very nicely compiled and written. Don't you think you should have included Hussey Vs Ajmal Semi-final encounter in Batsman Dominant section or you set some par score for this section?
    [[
    Yes, my cut-off was very high: 30 runs, to be exact. Hussey scored 22 of the 23 runs conceded by Ajmal. The impact might have been greater than, say, Bhatti's over, but I went by numbers.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • aleem.abn on May 10, 2014, 8:28 GMT

    Very nicely compiled and written. Don't you think you should have included Hussey Vs Ajmal Semi-final encounter in Batsman Dominant section or you set some par score for this section?
    [[
    Yes, my cut-off was very high: 30 runs, to be exact. Hussey scored 22 of the 23 runs conceded by Ajmal. The impact might have been greater than, say, Bhatti's over, but I went by numbers.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • athreya83 on May 10, 2014, 8:33 GMT

    Isn't a over 1/450 in a test match? 90 per day for 5 days equals 450 right..Me missing something simple here?
    [[
    I have gone on the basis that the average number of hours required for a Test match result is 400.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 10, 2014, 9:33 GMT

    Why don't u just enjoy the game..lol..unnecessary analysis....all things u revealed were already apparent.
    [[
    Wonderful. Since everything is apparent to you, I will set three questions for you to answer.
    What is the average score reached in the first 6 overs of the match, and how many wickets?
    Has a maiden over ever been bowled to Gayle. If yes, who was the bowler.
    What is the average RpO for the 18th over in the first innings for teams which won the match?
    The point, obviously not understood by you with your surface and shallow reading, is that all these questions require the availability of the ball-by-ball data.
    LOL, on my side.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • sa03r on May 10, 2014, 11:26 GMT

    Great analysis, Ananth, as always. Being a Pakistani, I tend to agree that Amir's over was "..the most incredible over in T20I history." But in the context of the game it made little impact. Aussies had already piled up a formidable total which proved to be match-winning.
    [[
    Yes, I agree. Just as Bilawal Bhatti's recent 30-run over did not cost the Pakistan team as much as expected.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • on May 10, 2014, 18:38 GMT

    you should do a point about different bowlers who are successful in T20 and reasoning. Likewise for batsmen

  • on May 11, 2014, 5:03 GMT

    Ananth, Thanks for your great analysis. This is my favorite blog in ESPNcrickinfo. And I wish you all the best for your future articles. As a Sri Lankan, my favorite articles were the articles about Test bowlers where Murali dominated them at the top with some other all time great bowlers too. Thank you and keep this good work going!!!

  • on May 11, 2014, 5:23 GMT

    Great analysis.. I am not trying to nit pick but in "Izatullah Dawlatzai vs England, 2012" the final score was 187/4 and not 187/5.
    [[
    No, both of us are wrong. The final score was 197 for 5.
    Ananth
    ]]
    I know this is irrelevant to this article, but I am officially lodging my complaint against DL here. In my opinion the match should be called a tie if the DL victory margin s close. Will it be possible for you analyse, how many times the DL victors changed over the course of the game and how long were the eventual winners ahead of the DL par score during the match.? In other words I would like to know the statistical significance of DL predicting the right winner especially for close matches. I understand, a team DL predicting the winners if the batting batting second is 80/5 at 20 overs chasing 360, but i certainly have a problem if DL predicts the result if they were chasing 220. Ideally, for me DL can predict the winner if only if the DL score is beaten comprehensively and i think statistical analysis will us define 'comprehensive'
    [[
    I can take or leave D/L. I know Milind thinks it is quite a good system. I will let him respond to you.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • Mr.CricketJKNotHussey on May 11, 2014, 5:34 GMT

    Great article and I know you have your own opinion about the dot ball criteria but I don't feel its completely fair. I agree with the example you gave, if a bowler sets the field/WK in a certain way and doesn't bowl according to it, it is his fault if he goes for byes. However, more often than not, byes and leg byes are conceded because the bowler legitimately beat the batsman. They occur because the batsman could not read the ball properly and got lucky enough to hit it with his body or that it beat everyone including the keeper. Sometimes a deflection of the leg makes it impossible even for the keeper to get it. So, I feel like on average, the bowlers should not be punished for this, its still good bowling just hard luck. Besides, bowlers get punished for edges all the time through no fault of their own so I feel like this rule balances it out.
    [[
    Pl see my reply to SlSup.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • SLSup on May 11, 2014, 5:36 GMT

    Now this is the kind of analysis players and officials alike can chew on. Time well spent producing valuable insight into t20's where, both, enthusiasts and critics can find something to mull over. Unless, of course, you are Ankit Godara who pretends to know everything there is to know about t20s. I am not entirely convinced if leg-byes and byes should be counted against a bowler though you have already conceded you will not change your mind on it : ) Ideally byes and leg-byes may nullify a maiden (counted against team) but need not necessarily be counted against the runs conceded by the bowler. But, then, someone could say "what about misfields and overthrows that count against bowlers?" Or a wrong no-ball or wide call by an Ump. Also, in your example, what if the bowler remembers the 3rd ball googly but the wicket-keeper forgets! Should that count against bowler. But, then, if it counts aainst the team isn't the bowler part of the team? : ) I give up!
    [[
    No, I am not even saying that the byes/legbyes should count against the bowler. That is a separate topic. My re-definition is solely for the purpose of definition of dot balls and maidens, that is all. I agree one follows the other but this is a cleaner and clearer interpretation.
    Misfields, overthrows and dropped catches are not recorded. A dropped catch could also save runs. And so on.
    Ananth
    ]]

  • WalkingWicket11 on May 11, 2014, 13:19 GMT

    I want to add one more point in favour of your definition of dot ball. While extra runs don't contribute to the batsman's score, they do contribute to his morale and relieve some pressure.

    For example, suppose team batting first is at 100/4 after 15 overs. If there's a new batsman (perhaps facing his first ball), he would be under immense pressure as he is expected to go all guns blazing right away. With 4 leg byes off the 1st ball, he would certainly feel a lot better facing the next ball than a "swing and miss dot ball", even though his own score is 0 not out in both cases. The effect is more pronounced when chasing.

    In a Test match, this doesn't matter much since *usually* the batsman is not in a "race" to score quickly.
    [[
    Good point. It is my considered conclusion that 4/5 wides/noballs/byes/legbyes do more damage to the bowling team than a six.
    Ananth
    ]]