|Photos||Video & Audio||Blogs||Statistics||Archive||Shop||Mobile|
With the league stage of the IPL out of the way, we look at the best batsmen and bowlers in the tournament so far
May 30, 2008
Methodology: With the format putting so much emphasis on the rate of scoring, the rating system incorporates the number of runs scored, the average, and the scoring-rate, with added weightage on the last. The average and the strike-rate have been calculated on the basis of the tournament average for both: through the IPL, the batsmen scored 26.29 runs per dismissal, at the rate of 129.5 runs per 100 balls. Taking that as the benchmark, batsmen were either rewarded or penalised for scoring at a better or worse rate, with the strike-rate factor being squared to give it slightly additional weightage. Shaun Marsh, for example, averaged nearly three times the tournament average, while his scoring-rate was slightly better than par. Those two factors, multiplied by the runs scored, gives the batting points. To ensure players with few innings don't make it to the top of the list on the basis of a couple of big scores, the numbers for batsmen with fewer than six innings has been dampened.
In a tournament with several superstars, the undoubted batting hero has been Marsh, the left-hander from Western Australia who has been in the zone almost every time he has come out to bat. The leading Twenty20 batsman in Australia's 2007-08 domestic season - he scored 290 runs from six innings - he brought his form over to India, adding considerable weight to the Kings XI Punjab's top order. His century in Punjab's last league match, against Rajasthan, further boosted his already stunning stats, as he finished with six 50-plus scores in ten innings, and only once scored less than 39. That century also took away the orange cap from Gautam Gambhir, who had held on to it for much of the tournament.
The emphasis on strike-rate also means Sanath Jayasuriya and Virender Sehwag - two stars who've justified their billing - sneak ahead of Gautam Gambhir. Punjab, Rajasthan and Delhi all have three players in the top 15, but so too, more surprisingly, do the Deccan Chargers, with Rohit Sharma, Adam Gilchrist and Venugopal Rao all in the list, which only indicates how lacklustre the rest have been. The other interesting aspect is the number of left-handers in the table - nine out of 15.
|Batsman||Matches||Runs||Average||Strike rate||Average factor||SR factor||Batting points|
|Mahendra Singh Dhoni||14||385||38.50||131.39||1.46||1.03||580.38|
Methodology: The factors which come into play here are the wickets taken, the average, and the economy-rate. The average runs conceded per wicket taken by the bowlers (excluding run-outs) in the IPL has been 29.29, while they have conceded 8.14 runs per over. Each wicket is therefore multiplied by that average; the average factor is calculated by dividing the tournament bowling average by the player's bowling average, while the economy factor is similarly calculated by taking in the tournament economy-rate, and squaring the result (as was done for batsmen's strike-rates). Also, like for batsmen, the numbers for bowlers who have taken fewer than ten wickets have been dampened by the ratio of wickets taken. (A bowler with five wickets will have his numbers halved.)
One bowler is head and shoulders above the rest in this tournament - Rajasthan's Sohail Tanvir has had a stunning run, taking 21 wickets from just ten games at an incredible average of 10 and an economy-rate of 5.97. The next-highest wicket-taker, Sreesanth, has played four more games but taken two fewer wickets.
The are seven others between the two leading wicket-takers, though, primarily due to Sreesanth's relatively high economy-rate. Delhi's Amit Mishra has been splendid as well, with nine wickets from just five games, and at an excellent economy-rate as well. While the left-hand batsmen have dominated, the bowling has largely been the preserve of the right-handers, with only two lefties - Tanvir and Irfan Pathan - making the top 15.
|Bowler||Matches||Wickets||Average||Econ rate||Ave factor||Econ factor||Bowling points|
Add up the batting and bowling points, and we get the most successful players of the tournament. Tanvir's position at the top is indisputable, Marsh takes second place, while Shane Watson's all-round performance puts him in third spot.
|Player||Batting points||Bowling points||Total|
Have the most expensive players given their teams value for the money paid for them? With some of them costing more than US$1 million, obviously the ones who have cost less have given their franchises better value. Marsh and Tanvir have been the best value, while the US$ 125,000 Rajasthan paid for Watson was wisely spent. Among the top ten Chawla is the most expensive, while Warne just misses out on the top ten, and is in 11th place.
|Player||Total points||Cost (US$)||Points per $ x 100|
And among the top names who didn't fire, Ricky Ponting, Jacques Kallis and Sachin Tendulkar feature prominently. Ponting managed 39 runs from four innings at a scoring-rate of 73.58. Tendulkar's stats were much better, but not enough to justify the price tag of $1,121,250, while Kallis was one of many disappointments for Bangalore - he averaged 18.09 with the bat, at a strike-rate of 108.74. With the ball he was equally dismal, taking four wickets at an average of 77.75 and an economy-rate of 9.05.
|Player||Total points||Cost (US$)||Points per $ x 100|
The last two tables don't include costs of some Indian domestic players, whose prices weren't available.
Modern Masters: Rahul Dravid and Sanjay Manjrekar discuss Steve Waugh's impact
Batsman talks about his long wait for a full England tour, where he gets his power from, and his days on a horse. By Alan Gardner
ESPNcricinfo XI: Father and son pairs to have scored Test hundreds
Boyd Rankin talks about giants, playing for the enemy, and being mentored by Allan Donald
Jonathan Wilson: Money and the quality of the contest are important, but there's something to be said for soul
Shorter tours don't allow you time to get into form, and domestic cricket isn't demanding enough