England v Australia, 2nd Investec Test, Lord's July 17, 2013

England's recent dominance v Australia's overall superiority

Stats preview for the second Investec Test between England and Australia, at Lord's
13

After all the tension and excitement of Trent Bridge, the Ashes bandwagon moves to Lord's, a venue which has served England well over the last few years, and one at which Australia have had plenty of Ashes success over the last 65 years.

Australia have some catching up to do after their 14-run defeat in Nottingham, but historically Lord's has been a fantastic venue for them: in 36 Tests they've won 16 and lost only six. (This includes a Test against South Africa in 1912, and one against Pakistan in 2010, which was their last Test match at this venue.) Among overseas grounds where they've played at least five Tests, only at three venues do they have better win-loss ratios. Before their defeat by 115 runs in the 2009 Ashes, Australia had gone 18 Tests without losing at Lord's, dating all the way back to 1938 - during this period they won nine and drew nine. That undefeated run was broken in 2009, but Australia have since won another Test here, beating Pakistan by 150 runs in 2010.

England's record against Australia isn't so hot at this ground, but their recent stats here are outstanding. Given that their top players enjoy playing at this venue, and they're leading in the series, England will be confident of another strong performance. Since the beginning of 2004, they've lost only two out of 19 Tests here, against Australia in 2005, by 239 runs, and by 51 runs against South Africa last year. Earlier this year, England beat New Zealand by 170 runs here.

Lord's has been one of England's best home venues recently, but it's their worst Ashes home venue. Their overall win-loss ratio here of 0.42 against Australia is their worst among all grounds in England. Their best is the other venue in London, The Oval, where England have won 16 and lost 6, almost the reverse of their record at Lord's.

England and Australia at Lord's
  Tests Won/ lost Drawn W/L ratio
England - overall 124 49/ 28 47 1.75
Australia - overall 36 16/ 6 14 2.67
Australia since 1948 19 10/ 1 8 10.00
England since 2004 19 10/ 2 7 5.00
England at each home venue v Australia
Venue Tests Won/ Lost W/L ratio
The Oval 35 16/ 6 2.67
Edgbaston 13 5/ 3 1.67
Old Trafford 28 7/ 7 1.00
Headingley 24 7/ 9 0.77
Trent Bridge 21 5/ 7 0.71
Lord's 34 6/ 14 0.42

Given that England's recent record at the ground is terrific, it's no surprise that both, their batsmen and their bowlers have excellent stats here. Unlike at Trent Bridge, where none of England's current top-order batsmen average 40, here all of them have 40-plus averages, including Stuart Broad, who averages an impressive 45.33 from 15 Test innings. His highest Test score of 169 was made at this ground, against Pakistan in 2010.

Among the current lot, Kevin Pietersen has the highest aggregate of 1228 at a superb average, but his recent efforts here have been patchy: since the beginning of 2009, in 12 innings Pietersen has two 50-plus scores, and an average of 42.60, and even that was largely because of an unbeaten 202 against a ragged Indian attack in 2011. Apart from that innings, he has only scored 224 runs from ten completed innings, at an average of 22.40. Trott has been more consistent here, with seven 50-plus scores in 13 innings and an average of almost 70. Like Broad, Trott's highest Test score is also at Lord's - 226 against Bangladesh in 2010. Ian Bell has three Test centuries at Lord's, though he hasn't got one here since 2008, while Matt Prior has been extremely impressive here as well.

England's current batsmen in Lord's Tests
Batsman Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Kevin Pietersen 14 1228 61.40 5/ 3
Alastair Cook 15 1141 45.64 3/ 7
Ian Bell 13 957 56.29 3/ 6
Jonathan Trott 7 835 69.58 2/ 5
Matt Prior 11 762 47.62 3/ 3
Stuart Broad 10 544 45.33 1/ 3
Graeme Swann 9 231 25.67 0/ 1
Jonny Bairstow 3 211 42.20 0/ 2
Joe Root 1 111 55.50 0/ 1

Among Australia's current lot, the only batsman who's played more than a Test here is Michael Clarke - he averages almost 50 from three Tests, one of which was against Pakistan. In the two matches against England, Clarke hasn't scored much in the first innings, but has made substantial contributions in the second.

England's bowling numbers look pretty good at this ground too, with most of their current bowlers averaging less than 30 here. James Anderson, the hero at Trent Bridge, has taken more wickets at Lord's than at any other ground, while four of his 15 five-fors have also come here. His most recent Test performance here was memorable too, as he took 7 for 70 in May this year against New Zealand. Broad, who averages 26.82 at Lord's, was outstanding in that game too, taking 7 for 44 in New Zealand's second innings to take the Man-of-the-Match award. Steven Finn had a terrible game at Trent Bridge but he just might get another game, given his record at Lord's: 29 wickets at 20.65, with four four-wicket hauls in the last couple of years.

Graeme Swann has been impressive at Lord's too, with 31 wickets at 27.12, but his stats are highly skewed: against left-handers here, he has taken 21 wickets at 16.09; against right-handers, his ten wickets have cost him more than 50 each. The only batsman he has dismissed more than twice in Tests here is Shivnarine Chanderapaul: three dismissals for 35 runs at an average of 11.67.

England's current bowlers in Lord's Tests
Bowler Tests Wickets Average Strike rate 5WI/ 10WM
James Anderson 13 58 26.06 56.7 4/ 0
Stuart Broad 10 47 26.82 49.2 2/ 1
Graeme Swann 9 31 27.12 60.5 1/ 0
Steven Finn 5 29 20.65 33.7 1/ 0
Graham Onions 2 10 19.30 24.9 1/ 0
Tim Bresnan 3 5 66.00 136.0 0/ 0
Swann v right- and left-handers in Tests at Lord's
  Wickets Average Strike rate
Right-handers 10 50.30 100.9
Left-handers 21 16.09 41.3

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

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on July 18, 2013, 8:15 GMT

    @Hammond I think the title is meant in respect to Lords & not overall Ashes history. i.e.England's recent good run at mecca of cricket against Aus good record overall record here.

  • jrw39 on July 18, 2013, 8:08 GMT

    @Hammond - Did you read the whole article or just the headline? Firstly, the article is not about the Ashes as a whole but the performance of the two teams at Lords. If you look at the tables it is very clear that Australia have won more Ashes tests at Lords than England, therefore they have overall superiority at this venue. However, recent history is in England's favour and the statistics suggest they will be hard to beat.

  • Hammond on July 18, 2013, 6:46 GMT

    How does Australia have "Overall" superiority when they have won 31 ashes series and England 30? If England win the next two series they will in fact be historically and currently the superior test cricket nation than Australia. Seems as if Mr Rajesh has been picking and choosing the stats to prove his argument. To me, "Overall" means exactly what it says on the box, and that means 1 test series is the actual "Overall" difference between the two teams.

  • on July 18, 2013, 2:24 GMT

    Yes, we are left with an overriding impression that Finn was carted maliciously all over the park by Brad Haddin in the Aussie second innings. Ten completed overs for 37 runs is hardly a a malicious beating. This was not a great game for Finn, but bowlers have had worse match figures than 2 for 117 and been retained. I hope the poms persist with him, but Bresnan is good too. Go the Aussies.

  • siddhartha87 on July 18, 2013, 1:35 GMT

    Finn should be in playing XI. He is way better than Bresnan. And even better than Broad

  • Shan156 on July 18, 2013, 0:40 GMT

    The TB win is important because with that England have now won (46) as many home tests as they have lost against Australia (excluding the one test that they lost in 1902 at Sheffield Bramall Lane).

  • spindizzy on July 17, 2013, 22:07 GMT

    Does this include weighting for incompetent umpiring?

  • landl47 on July 17, 2013, 22:03 GMT

    Finn's been getting a bit of a bad rap. His first spell at TB was excellent- 2 wickets in successive balls and Clarke was only saved from completing the hattrick because he wasn't good enough to touch it. He later bowled an excellent quick and accurate spell of 5 overs for 8 runs. Yes, his bowling to Agar was a nightmare, half-trackers sitting up to be hit, but his spell on the last day was not as bad as it seemed; Haddin, as he said, decided to have a slog and it came off.

    Finn has experience at Lord's and if he can get into a good rhythm and bowl a full length he'll be dangerous. However, Cook has to have confidence in him and if he doesn't them someone else must play. A 4-man attack must have each bowler playing a full part.

  • Westmorlandia on July 17, 2013, 20:01 GMT

    wibblewibble - Finn's Lord's stats are still good if you exclude Bangladesh. Yes, the sample size is small - but then an awful lot of judgements are being made about Finn on the basis of one Test at Trent Bridge last week. I don't recall such a hue and cry before the Test.

    Finn isn't great if he doesn't get wickets, but frankly you can say much the same about most bowlers, and he's more likely to get wickets than most. He can and should get better and more reliable, but he's good enough now to deserve a place at Lord's this week.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 17, 2013, 19:54 GMT

    KP patchy? Surely not... some fans don't ever want to see those together in the same sentence.

    Not good reading for Australians at all. If you swap the batting averages with the bowling averages, the figures are still better and prettier than for Aus. team.

  • on July 18, 2013, 8:15 GMT

    @Hammond I think the title is meant in respect to Lords & not overall Ashes history. i.e.England's recent good run at mecca of cricket against Aus good record overall record here.

  • jrw39 on July 18, 2013, 8:08 GMT

    @Hammond - Did you read the whole article or just the headline? Firstly, the article is not about the Ashes as a whole but the performance of the two teams at Lords. If you look at the tables it is very clear that Australia have won more Ashes tests at Lords than England, therefore they have overall superiority at this venue. However, recent history is in England's favour and the statistics suggest they will be hard to beat.

  • Hammond on July 18, 2013, 6:46 GMT

    How does Australia have "Overall" superiority when they have won 31 ashes series and England 30? If England win the next two series they will in fact be historically and currently the superior test cricket nation than Australia. Seems as if Mr Rajesh has been picking and choosing the stats to prove his argument. To me, "Overall" means exactly what it says on the box, and that means 1 test series is the actual "Overall" difference between the two teams.

  • on July 18, 2013, 2:24 GMT

    Yes, we are left with an overriding impression that Finn was carted maliciously all over the park by Brad Haddin in the Aussie second innings. Ten completed overs for 37 runs is hardly a a malicious beating. This was not a great game for Finn, but bowlers have had worse match figures than 2 for 117 and been retained. I hope the poms persist with him, but Bresnan is good too. Go the Aussies.

  • siddhartha87 on July 18, 2013, 1:35 GMT

    Finn should be in playing XI. He is way better than Bresnan. And even better than Broad

  • Shan156 on July 18, 2013, 0:40 GMT

    The TB win is important because with that England have now won (46) as many home tests as they have lost against Australia (excluding the one test that they lost in 1902 at Sheffield Bramall Lane).

  • spindizzy on July 17, 2013, 22:07 GMT

    Does this include weighting for incompetent umpiring?

  • landl47 on July 17, 2013, 22:03 GMT

    Finn's been getting a bit of a bad rap. His first spell at TB was excellent- 2 wickets in successive balls and Clarke was only saved from completing the hattrick because he wasn't good enough to touch it. He later bowled an excellent quick and accurate spell of 5 overs for 8 runs. Yes, his bowling to Agar was a nightmare, half-trackers sitting up to be hit, but his spell on the last day was not as bad as it seemed; Haddin, as he said, decided to have a slog and it came off.

    Finn has experience at Lord's and if he can get into a good rhythm and bowl a full length he'll be dangerous. However, Cook has to have confidence in him and if he doesn't them someone else must play. A 4-man attack must have each bowler playing a full part.

  • Westmorlandia on July 17, 2013, 20:01 GMT

    wibblewibble - Finn's Lord's stats are still good if you exclude Bangladesh. Yes, the sample size is small - but then an awful lot of judgements are being made about Finn on the basis of one Test at Trent Bridge last week. I don't recall such a hue and cry before the Test.

    Finn isn't great if he doesn't get wickets, but frankly you can say much the same about most bowlers, and he's more likely to get wickets than most. He can and should get better and more reliable, but he's good enough now to deserve a place at Lord's this week.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 17, 2013, 19:54 GMT

    KP patchy? Surely not... some fans don't ever want to see those together in the same sentence.

    Not good reading for Australians at all. If you swap the batting averages with the bowling averages, the figures are still better and prettier than for Aus. team.

  • wibblewibble on July 17, 2013, 16:46 GMT

    I worry about Finn's averages. Whenever someone pulls out a good average for Finn, look at the strike rate. Here, Finn has 29 wickets at 20 - check out the strike rate, its 33. !!!!!33!!!! Finn is never striking at that rate, this is a statistical fluke due to a small sample size and sub-standard opposition - a third of those wickets are Bangladeshi batsmen playing on a bouncy Lord's track.

    Against SA last summer, he had 8/150 match figures, looks good no? His first innings tally was 18-2-75-4 - yeah, they came at under 20 a wicket, but economy of 4.17? If he gets wickets, they aren't too expensive, BUT if he doesn't get wickets, he is too expensive to bowl a containing role.

  • cloudmess on July 17, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    I suppose if Trent Bridge proved anything it was not to pay too much attention to stats like these. Australia broke 2 all-time world records in the match, and then came a whisker from the highest ever run-chase at the ground. Perhaps the only stat England should be noting is Steve Finn's record at Lord's v Bresnan's. Finn was poor at TB, but then he tends to blow hot and cold. He might just be a match-winner at Lord's. The only other thing one can predict is the probability of another tight contest, with the seamers on both teams playing a crucial role.

  • RichardG on July 17, 2013, 15:42 GMT

    There is also the importance of the second test in the Ashes. It is 1985 since a team won the second test and lost the series. In the 13 series since then, the second test has been won by the eventual series winner 11 times and drawn twice. It makes sense I suppose; you're either going two-nil up, or gaining momentum for the remaining tests. Either way, it all points to a crucial test. For all of Australia's promising signs at Trent Bridge, a defeat here and they'll have an almost insurmountable task ahead.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • RichardG on July 17, 2013, 15:42 GMT

    There is also the importance of the second test in the Ashes. It is 1985 since a team won the second test and lost the series. In the 13 series since then, the second test has been won by the eventual series winner 11 times and drawn twice. It makes sense I suppose; you're either going two-nil up, or gaining momentum for the remaining tests. Either way, it all points to a crucial test. For all of Australia's promising signs at Trent Bridge, a defeat here and they'll have an almost insurmountable task ahead.

  • cloudmess on July 17, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    I suppose if Trent Bridge proved anything it was not to pay too much attention to stats like these. Australia broke 2 all-time world records in the match, and then came a whisker from the highest ever run-chase at the ground. Perhaps the only stat England should be noting is Steve Finn's record at Lord's v Bresnan's. Finn was poor at TB, but then he tends to blow hot and cold. He might just be a match-winner at Lord's. The only other thing one can predict is the probability of another tight contest, with the seamers on both teams playing a crucial role.

  • wibblewibble on July 17, 2013, 16:46 GMT

    I worry about Finn's averages. Whenever someone pulls out a good average for Finn, look at the strike rate. Here, Finn has 29 wickets at 20 - check out the strike rate, its 33. !!!!!33!!!! Finn is never striking at that rate, this is a statistical fluke due to a small sample size and sub-standard opposition - a third of those wickets are Bangladeshi batsmen playing on a bouncy Lord's track.

    Against SA last summer, he had 8/150 match figures, looks good no? His first innings tally was 18-2-75-4 - yeah, they came at under 20 a wicket, but economy of 4.17? If he gets wickets, they aren't too expensive, BUT if he doesn't get wickets, he is too expensive to bowl a containing role.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 17, 2013, 19:54 GMT

    KP patchy? Surely not... some fans don't ever want to see those together in the same sentence.

    Not good reading for Australians at all. If you swap the batting averages with the bowling averages, the figures are still better and prettier than for Aus. team.

  • Westmorlandia on July 17, 2013, 20:01 GMT

    wibblewibble - Finn's Lord's stats are still good if you exclude Bangladesh. Yes, the sample size is small - but then an awful lot of judgements are being made about Finn on the basis of one Test at Trent Bridge last week. I don't recall such a hue and cry before the Test.

    Finn isn't great if he doesn't get wickets, but frankly you can say much the same about most bowlers, and he's more likely to get wickets than most. He can and should get better and more reliable, but he's good enough now to deserve a place at Lord's this week.

  • landl47 on July 17, 2013, 22:03 GMT

    Finn's been getting a bit of a bad rap. His first spell at TB was excellent- 2 wickets in successive balls and Clarke was only saved from completing the hattrick because he wasn't good enough to touch it. He later bowled an excellent quick and accurate spell of 5 overs for 8 runs. Yes, his bowling to Agar was a nightmare, half-trackers sitting up to be hit, but his spell on the last day was not as bad as it seemed; Haddin, as he said, decided to have a slog and it came off.

    Finn has experience at Lord's and if he can get into a good rhythm and bowl a full length he'll be dangerous. However, Cook has to have confidence in him and if he doesn't them someone else must play. A 4-man attack must have each bowler playing a full part.

  • spindizzy on July 17, 2013, 22:07 GMT

    Does this include weighting for incompetent umpiring?

  • Shan156 on July 18, 2013, 0:40 GMT

    The TB win is important because with that England have now won (46) as many home tests as they have lost against Australia (excluding the one test that they lost in 1902 at Sheffield Bramall Lane).

  • siddhartha87 on July 18, 2013, 1:35 GMT

    Finn should be in playing XI. He is way better than Bresnan. And even better than Broad

  • on July 18, 2013, 2:24 GMT

    Yes, we are left with an overriding impression that Finn was carted maliciously all over the park by Brad Haddin in the Aussie second innings. Ten completed overs for 37 runs is hardly a a malicious beating. This was not a great game for Finn, but bowlers have had worse match figures than 2 for 117 and been retained. I hope the poms persist with him, but Bresnan is good too. Go the Aussies.