April 3, 2015

One-sided contests and the batting deluge in the last 15 overs

The 2015 World Cup saw plenty of one-sided contests, and one of the reasons was the way teams batting first exploited the last 15 overs

The bowlers struggled to cope with the fielding restrictions and the quality of batsmen like AB de Villiers in the last 15 overs in the 2015 World Cup © Associated Press

The 2015 World Cup lasted 48 matches, and was spread over six weeks. Over this period of relentless action, one of the aspects that stood out - unfortunately - was the number of one-sided contests. Match after match went by where the result was often a foregone conclusion even before the first innings had ended. Given the way the tournament progressed, it was quite fitting that the final was similarly lopsided too, with Australia's seven-wicket victory with 101 balls to spare being one of the easiest wins in World Cup finals.

There were a few tight games - the New Zealand-South Africa semi-final was easily one of the most memorable ODIs ever, while the low-scoring thriller between New Zealand and Australia was intense and action-packed from the first ball to the last. There were a few others as well, but those were exceptions in what was largely a tournament filled with one-sided games: out of 48 matches, 20 were decided by more than 50 runs, and 12 by a margin of five or more wickets with two or more overs to spare. That means two-thirds of the total matches were pretty one-sided (though there may have been passages of play within those matches which suggested a close contest). Thirteen games were decided by margins of more than 100 runs, and nine by more than five wickets and ten overs to spare.

These numbers were pretty similar to the numbers from the 2011 World Cup (see table below), but the difference this time was the lack of competitive games even when the top sides played each other. In matches between the top ten teams in the 2015 World Cup, only three out of 26 matches met the criteria for a close game defined here - a margin of less than 20 runs, or less than three wickets or six balls to spare: the Bangladesh-England game (15 runs), New Zealand versus Australia (one wicket), and the New Zealand-South Africa (one ball to spare). That's one close encounter every nine matches. In the 2011 World Cup, there were six such close matches out of 26 - that's twice as many as in this World Cup - including a tie between India and England.

The New Zealand-England game in Wellington was just one example when a match between two of the top ten teams turned out to be a complete no-contest, as England were bundled out for 123 and New Zealand chased the target down in less than 13 overs. In 2015, about 70% of the matches between the top ten sides ultimately turned out to be one-sided (18 out of 26), a slight increase from 2011 (16 out of 26). (This includes games like the one between Australia and Pakistan, which promised much but turned on a dropped catch and ultimately resulted in a comfortable win for the hosts.)

Result margins in 2015 and 2011 World Cups - all matches
Result margins 2015 2011
 Less than 20 runs  2  3
 Less than 3 wkts or 6 balls to spare  4  3
 Tie  0  1
 % of close games  12.5  14.58
 More than 50 runs  20  16
 By 5 or more wkts and 2 overs to spare  12  17
 % of one-sided games  66.67  68.75
Result margins in 2015 and 2011 World Cups - matches between top 10 teams
Result margins 2015 2011
 Less than 20 runs  1  3
 Less than 3 wkts or 6 balls to spare  2  2
 Tie  0  1
 % of close games  11.54  23.08
 More than 50 runs  13  7
 By 5 or more wkts and 2 overs to spare  5  9
 % of one-sided games  69.23  61.54

The difference in 2015 was also the number of matches where the teams batting first racked up huge scores and won comfortably even in games between two top ten teams. In matches between the top ten teams, there were 13 such instances, compared to just seven in 2011. India beat Pakistan and South Africa in this manner, as did West Indies against Pakistan, and South Africa against West Indies. The run rates in the first 35 and last 15 overs for the teams batting first and teams chasing in this World Cup offer an insight into what has made the difference this time: in the last 15 overs, teams batting first scored at 8.82 runs per over, which was 40% more than the run rate during the same overs for the teams chasing.

In the 2011 World Cup, the corresponding percentage was only 15%. The pressures of a chase invariably means teams chasing don't score as many runs at the back end of their innings as teams batting first - instead they look to make up by scoring more in the earlier part of their innings - but usually the difference is about 15-20%; in the 2015 World Cup, the teams batting first scored 40% more in the last 15, and that differential was a bridge too far for the chasing teams to make up in the earlier overs. The new rules, which allow only four fielders outside the circle in the non-Powerplay overs, have helped teams bat with far greater freedom especially in the last ten overs, and while these rules are obviously the same for both sides, the pressures of chasing have clearly hampered teams batting second, preventing them from exploiting the rule change to the same extent.

Run rates for teams batting 1st and chasing in the 2015 World Cup
First 35 overs Last 15 overs
 Team batting 1st  4.71  8.82
 Team chasing  5.28  6.32
Run rates for teams batting 1st and chasing in the 2011 World Cup
First 35 overs Last 15 overs
 Team batting 1st  4.53  6.34
 Team chasing  4.79  5.5

The New Zealand innings in the final followed an unusual scoring pattern, where they collapsed from 150 for 3 after 35 overs to 183 all out, but through most of the tournament, the template for winning a match for the team batting first was to keep wickets in hand through the first 35 overs, build a solid foundation, and then pile it on in the last 15.

In matches between the top ten teams, of the 20 times that teams had five or more wickets in hand after 35 overs, they won 16 - that's four out of five matches. Apart from the final, the only instances of teams losing from these positions were England (161 for 4 after 35) against Sri Lanka, Bangladesh against New Zealand (161 for 4 after 35), and Zimbabwe against India (158 for 3 after 35). All of these games were in New Zealand, where chasing targets seemed to be a lot easier than in Australia.

Teams batting first obviously utilised the fielding restrictions superbly in the last 15, but since the rule change in November 2012 and before the World Cup, this fielding restriction hadn't resulted in similar success for teams batting first keeping wickets in hand: the win percentage for teams with five or more wickets in hand was around 50-55% in the earlier periods. In the World Cup, though, it suddenly spiked to 80%.

Teams losing 5 or fewer wickets after 35 overs (ODIs between top 10 teams)
Period Won Inngs %age
 2015 WC  16  20  80
 Nov 2012 to 2015 WC  100  183  55
 2011 WC  11  20  55
 2010 to Oct 2012  111  218  51

With so many runs being scored in the last 15, this was also a tournament where doubling the 30-over score was achieved very frequently - 61% of the time, compared to less than 40% in the earlier periods. The 35-over score was doubled at a 15% frequency, when it hadn't gone past 5% in the earlier periods.

The new rule of four fielders within the circle had been in existence for a couple of years before this World Cup, but never before did batting teams exploit it like they did in the tournament. Some of the batting during the last 15 was so brutal - and the bowlers so helpless - that it could well lead to a rule change later this year. For the bowlers and fielding captains who struggled through the slog overs in the World Cup, that wouldn't be a moment too soon.

Teams doubling totals after 30 and 35 overs*
Period 30-over doubled Inns %age 35-over doubled Inns %age
 2015 WC  17  28  60.71  4  26  15.38
 Nov 2012 to 2015 WC  68  172  39.53  2  170  1.18
 2011 WC  4  21  19.05  1  22  4.55
 2010 to Nov 2012  45  208  21.63  5  207  2.42
* In matches against top ten teams, when they'd scored at least 120 after 30, and 140 after 35

S Rajesh is stats editor of ESPNcricinfo. Follow him on Twitter

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Peter on April 6, 2015, 20:25 GMT

    Australia was a balanced side, yes, but it was a side selected for the conditions. I have said it before, it bears repeating, you don't get #1 ranking winning only home games. This side has performed competitively overseas better than other sides playing away, ergo their ranking reflecting this. That said, the top 4 or 5 teams are much closer than other eras with all capable of performing on a streak in hot form.

  • John on April 5, 2015, 20:30 GMT

    @ Samroy

    You are absolutely right! Still. my point is not completely dead. 3 SC tournaments; 6 grand finalists. Australia 2 appearances, one win; Sri Lanka 2 appearances, one win; India one appearance, one win; and England one appearance, no win. Australia not quite as successful as elsewhere, but still not a shabby record.

  • sam on April 5, 2015, 14:46 GMT

    @Dinosauras Probably you forgot how to count. Australia has won only once in the sub-continent in 1987. Sub-continent has hosted only 3 world cups (1987, 1996, 2011). So one QF (2011) loss, one final loss (1996) and a win in 1987.

  • Dummy4 on April 5, 2015, 10:11 GMT

    I would also suggest that there was a lack of quality bowling and capataincy to limit the creative batting that occured. The 2 teams in the final had the best bowling and some of the teams looked unprepared. Especially a certain northern hemisphere team that had spen a month out here before the world cup playing in a tri series tournament. I would also suggest that in the future the icc don't put the host nations in the same group. How ridiculous was it that Australia and New Zealand were in the same group. This allowed certain teams (India) to take advantage of a weaker group. This might also explain why there were so many blowout games.

  • John on April 5, 2015, 1:25 GMT


    The flaw in your argument is that Australia have won the World Cup TWICE in the Subcontinent (and also lost the final once - while admittedly being eliminated at the quarter final stage in 2011). Two victories in SC is exactly twice as many as India or Sri Lanka, infinitely more than Pakistan or Bangladesh. I'd say they were a pretty successful SC team!

  • Dik on April 4, 2015, 23:55 GMT

    Only 6 games lasted into the final over, 4 of them had Associates in those games.

  • Shulz Van on April 4, 2015, 18:21 GMT

    Unlike Test and T20 where SA and SL are dominating on the Top, I dont think its the same with the ODIs. There are no clear Top side in the ODIs these days. Unlike the late 90s and 2000s this Australia side is not unbeatable. Infact ODI ranking is a Joke. I believe NZ is the most Balanced side in the World with being strong in Both Spin and Pace. NZ, SA and Aus can beat each other in any given day. NZ and SA probably better than Aus in Sub Continent. Australia where the better team infront of the home crowd in the Final. SA probably the BEST batting outfit in the World.

  • harry on April 4, 2015, 11:04 GMT

    @disco bob , aus looked balanced side yes but only in their conditions they are balanced once they come to subcon then they are unbalanced side lacking a good spinner ur maxwell wont do the job as ur pace bowlers potency will be reduced and this very high pressure on maxwell and ur so called raw talent cannot stop aus from losing wc 2011, or test series or t20 world cup its just that conditions played role in reducing effect of spinners same way fast bowerls in sub continent

  • Dummy4 on April 3, 2015, 19:08 GMT

    In order to bring back balance b/w bat & ball in ODI, just like batting power play bowling team should be allowed field relaxation play of 5 overs anytime during the match in which they be allowed to have upto 5 fielders out.

    People don't wanna see substandard cricket. Thankfully new rules have kicked out part timers. Now is the time to get rid of substandard edged boundaries by allowing 1 extra deep fielder anywhere in 30 degree arc right behind the keeper throughout the match.

  • Dummy on April 3, 2015, 13:00 GMT

    @disco_bob I agree with your comments regarding Aus having a balanced team but why do you think we deserved our comeuppance ? For being so good mayb ?

  • No featured comments at the moment.