Matches (13)
IPL (2)
PSL (2)
Women's Tri-Series (SL) (1)
County DIV1 (3)
County DIV2 (4)
USA-W vs ZIM-W (1)

Anantha Narayanan

Batsmen with highest averages at each position in Tests

Analysing the greatest players at each batting position

Shivnarine Chanderpaul: The best at No.6 © Getty Images
This is a logical sequence to the
ODI Batting positions analysis and will enable us to get a very good handle on the best Test performers at each batting position. The batting average is used as the yardstick for measuring. This is the most accepted of all batting measures and has very few critics. Also the same method is used to determine the individual batsmen figures. Since the comparisons are across all batsmen at the same position the impact of not outs is minimised.

The batting average of the batsman in the relevant position is used to sequence the tables. Let us now look at the tables. Where there are more than 20 batsmen, the top-20 are shown.

Batting position: Opening (minimum 3000 runs)
No Batsman Cty BPA Total Inns No Runs Avge % of Runs Total
1.Sutcliffe H Eng 1.06 4555 83 9 4522 61.11 99.3% 8.1% ahead 2.Hutton L Eng 1.23 6971 131 12 6721 56.48 96.4% 3.Hobbs J.B Eng 1.20 5410 97 6 5130 56.37 94.8% 4.Simpson R.B Aus 2.64 4869 70 4 3664 55.52 75.3% 5.Sehwag V Ind 1.41 6691 120 5 6312 54.89 94.3% 6.Amiss D.L Eng 1.72 3612 69 8 3276 53.70 90.7% 7.Smith G.C Saf 1.26 6800 136 8 6565 51.29 96.5% 8.Hayden M.L Aus 1.00 8626 184 14 8626 50.74 100.0% 9.Gavaskar S.M Ind 1.26 10122 203 12 9607 50.30 94.9% 10.Langer J.L Aus 1.79 7696 115 9 5112 48.23 66.4% 11.Boycott G Eng 1.03 8114 191 23 8091 48.16 99.7% 12.Gibbs H.H Saf 1.89 6167 116 5 5242 47.23 85.0% 13.Lawry W.M Aus 1.00 5234 123 12 5234 47.15 100.0% 14.Saeed Anwar Pak 1.16 4052 86 2 3957 47.11 97.7% 15.Morris A.R Aus 1.13 3533 76 2 3381 45.69 95.7% 16.Vaughan M.P Eng 2.37 5719 72 4 3093 45.49 54.1% 17.Greenidge C.G Win 1.05 7558 182 16 7488 45.11 99.1% 18.Hunte C.C Win 1.00 3245 78 6 3245 45.07 100.0% 19.Stewart A.J Eng 3.58 8465 77 2 3348 44.64 39.6% 20.Edrich J.H Eng 1.76 5138 82 5 3430 44.55 66.8% 16 further entries. England dominates with the greats, Sutcliffe, Hobbs and Hutton occupying the top-3 positions. Sehwag is in the top 5. Note also that Hayden, Lawry and Hunte in this list never did anything but open.
Batting position: # 3 (minimum 2000 runs)
Full post
A Test series for the gods - part 2

The results from a simulated five-Test series between an all-time England XI and an all-time World XI

Malcolm Marshall: 32 wickets in five Tests a an average of 17.18 © Getty Images
An intriguing title to an article radically different from my normal analytical efforts. I can assure the readers that they would not be disappointed.

During early 1990s we had developed a series of complex and unique Test and ODI simulation systems. We had simulated for Sportstar a ODI World Cup. We had also conducted an inter-school tournament between the top schools letting the children captain various teams. Also we had done some innovative pre-match simulation of the matches during the 1999 World Cup.

During 2002, I undertook a very different and unusual exercise with Times of London, in conjunction with Wisden On-line. This was to simulate a series of 5 Tests between an all-time England XI and all-time World XI. For various logical reasons we restricted ourselves to the post-war players. These matches were to be played at Lord's, Bridgetown, Cape Town, SCG and Calcutta. The two teams were selected by Christopher Martin-Jenkins with inputs from us. The actual simulation was done in Bangalore over a few days.

The results were published in London times, with comments by Steven Lynch, between 26 July 2002 and 3 August 2002.

Since most readers might not have seen these articles, I felt I ought to do an article on this unique exercise. In the first part I talked about the simulation methodology and the teams which were selected. In the second part I will cover the actual "Test" match scores and the original match reports as sent by us to London Times. I am sure the readers would find these worthwhile to peruse.

In the first part, I had laid the foundation of this unique Test series. In this follow-up article I have given the scorecards and match reports.

First Test: played at Lord's, London (ROW won by six wickets)

England Post-war XI: First  innings -
292 (Hutton 129*, May 89, Marshall 5/46)
R O W   Post-war XI: First  innings -
440 (V Richards 85, Lara 75, Tendulkar 59, Gichrist 95*, Statham 4/86, Underwood 4/84)
England Post-war XI: Second innings -
302 (Hutton 136, Cowdrey 63, Warne 5/84, Muralitharan 4/74)
R O W   Post-war XI: Second innings -
156/4 (Gavaskar 57*)
To view the scanned scorecard properly, please right-click here and download the file.

Viewing on the browser may not be clear since most browsers reduce the picture sizes. This applies to all jpg files. It is suggested that readers download the files and peruse at leisure.

To view the scanned match report properly, please right-click here and download the file.

Alternately, to view the match report in browser-friendly html format, please click here.

Second Test: played at Bridgetown, Barbados (England won by 43 runs)

England Post-war XI: First  innings
308 (May 92*, Botham 73, Marshall 4/67, Lillee 4/79)
R O W   Post-war XI: First  innings
339 (V Richards 103, Lara 50, Trueman 3/70, Statham 4/60)
England Post-war XI: Second innings
299 (Botham 101*, Dexter 46, Marshall 6/81)
R O W   Post-war XI: Second innings
223 (B Richards 62, Sobers 53*, Trueman 3/46, Statham 4/57).
To view the scanned scorecard properly, please right-click here and download the file. Viewing on the browser may not be clear since most browsers reduce the picture sizes.

To view the scanned match report properly, please right-click here and download the file.

Alternately, to view the match report in browser-friendly html format, please click here.

Third Test: played at Cape town, South Africa (ROW won by 55 runs)

R O W   Post-war XI: First  innings
485 (Gavaskar 145, Lara 75, Sobers 89*, Gilchrist 66)
England Post-war XI: First  innings
150 (Hutton 48, Marshall 4/30, Warne 5/35)
R O W   Post-war XI: Second innings
150 for 3 decl (Gavaskar 57*)
England Post-war XI: Second innings\
430 (Hutton 113, Gooch 104, May 64, Muralitharan 5/118).
To view the scanned scorecard properly, please right-click here and download the file. Viewing on the browser may not be clear since most browsers reduce the picture sizes.

To view the scanned match report properly, please right-click here and download the file.

Alternately, to view the match report in browser-friendly html format, please click here.

Fourth Test: played at SCG, Sydney (England won by 5 wickets)

R O W   Post-war XI: First  innings
242 (B Richards 72, V Richards 74, Underwood 3/34, Laker 3/26)
England Post-war XI: First  innings
429 (Hutton 182, Dexter 82, May 69, Murali 5.91, Warne 4/91)
R O W   Post-war XI: Second innings
261 (B Richards 53, Lara 84, Botham 4/74)
England Post-war XI: Second innings
76 for 5 (Marshall 5/33).
To view the scanned scorecard properly, please right-click here and download the file. Viewing on the browser may not be clear since most browsers reduce the picture sizes. Pl note that this scanning has been done off the original newspaper.

To view the scanned match report properly, please right-click here and download the file.

Alternately, to view the match report in browser-friendly html format, please click here.

Fifth Test: played at Calcutta, India (ROW won by an innings and 52 runs)

England Post-war XI: First  innings
282 (Dexter 132, Marshall 3/56, Lillee 3/66, Sobers 3/64)
R O W   Post-war XI: First  innings
616 for 4 decl (Tendulkar 200*, Lara 106, Sobers 102*)
England Post-war XI: Second innings
282 (Hutton 56, May 102, Marshall 3/71, Muralitharan 3/40).
To view the scanned scorecard properly, please right-click here and download the file. Viewing on the browser may not be clear since most browsers reduce the picture sizes.

To view the scanned match report properly, please right-click here and download the file.

Alternately, to view the match report in browser-friendly html format, please click here.

In addition to the five Test series, a one-off "Test" was played between the team selected by a lucky reader (P.J.Mickleburgh) and an eleven selected by Christopher Martin-Jenkins.

To view the scanned scorecard properly, please right-click here and download the file. Viewing on the browser may not be clear since most browsers reduce the picture sizes.

A statistical summary:

Runs scored:      Hutton scored 744 runs.
Batting average:  Hutton's average was a Bradman-like 93.0.
Wickets captured: Marshall captured 32 wickets.
Bowling average:  Marshall's bowling average was a miserly 17.18.
Hundreds:         Hutton scored 4 hundreds.
Four-wkt hauls:   Marshall had 5 four-wkt hauls.
Highest score:    Tendulkar's unbeaten 200 in the last Test.
Best bowling:     Marshall's 6 for 81 although his devastating
spell of 5 for 33 when England needed only 76 to win
probably the bowling performance of the series.
Summing up this has been a Hutton-Marshall dominated series.

To view all five scorecards/simulation reports, please click/right-click here and view/download the file. Viewing on the browser may be fine since this is only a MS Word file.

Download this document and read the simulation reports at leisure. You will get a clear insight into the rationale behind the game development and the way it is played. Do not miss the last bit of the fourth Test where England chases 76 to win and almost comes a cropper due to wrong strategy adopted by the simulation captain.

Many readers have expressed their surprise at the non-inclusion of Barrington. If the readers peruse the simulation reports carefully, they will notice this sentiment expressed in more than one place. I myself was quite surprised at the preference of Cowdrey, no more than competent, to Barrington, among the best of defensive batsmen.

The final image. To view the scanned Player selection report of CM-J properly, please right-click here and download the file. Viewing on the browser may not be clear since most browsers reduce the picture sizes.

Truly this was a series for the Gods. If these teams were made into all-time XIs, Bradman, Barnes SF and Hammond might have replaced B Richards, Statham and Cowdrey. My hunch is that that team, immeasurably strengthened with the arrival of the great man himself, would probably win 4-1. Possibly not. Who knows, Barnes was well-nigh unplayable on many pitches and Hammond has a 14-run lead over Cowdrey.

Even in this series the presence of Barrington might (or might not) have tilted the scales. Readers must remember that if Barrington was playing, the role-playing captains might have attempted alternate strategies.

A few people have asked whether some simulation exercise can be done now. Unfortunately the programs were kept in cold storage in 2002. The database was also a manually created one since I was not able to link the simulation with my established and dynamic database in 2002, mainly because of time constraints. That exercise is a massive one, as also the one of fine tuning the simulation to fit in with today's 75+% result and 3.5+ rpo Test environment. I promise I will do it one day. At least let me see whether I can wake the Simulation suite of programs from their Rip van Winkle-like slumber.

Again let me re-assure the readers that this is not an attempt to plug any of our company products since I have nothing to sell, no products, no services, nothing !!! I have been driven by nostalgia and the need to share unique experiences with enlightened readers.

Full post
A Test series for the gods - part 1

An unusual simulation exercise pitting an all-time England XI and all-time World XI in a five-Test series played across the world

An intriguing title to an article radically different from my normal analytical efforts. I can assure the readers that they would not be disappointed.

During early 1990s we had developed a series of complex and unique Test and ODI simulation systems. We had simulated for Sportstar an ODI World Cup. We had also conducted an inter-school tournament between the top schools, letting the children captain various teams. Also we had done some innovative pre-match simulation of the matches during the 1999 World Cup.

During 2002, I undertook a very different and unusual exercise with Times of London, in conjunction with Wisden Online. This was to simulate a series of 5 Tests between an all-time England XI and all-time World XI. For various logical reasons we restricted ourselves to the post-war players. These matches were to be played at Lord's, SCG, Bridgetown, Cape Town and Calcutta. The two teams were selected by Christopher Martin-Jenkins with inputs from us. The actual simulation was done in Bangalore over a few days.

The results were published in London Times, with comments by Steven Lynch, between 26 July 2002 and 3 August 2002. The published scorecards will be scanned and shown in the next article.

Since most readers might not have seen these articles, I felt I ought to do an article on this unique exercise. In the first part I will talk about the simulation methodology and the teams which were selected. In the second part I will cover the actual "Test" match scores and the original match reports as sent by us to London Times. I am sure the readers would find these worthwhile to peruse.

SIMULATION METHODOLOGY:

1. Player Data:

The actual career data of the player concerned is used. The following figures are part of the Player data. Readers should remember that I have lot more data available now than during 2002.

- No of Tests
- Career years span
- Type of batsman (Opening/EMO/LMO/Tail)
- Runs scored
- Batting average
- Highest score
- No of 100s & overall pattern of 100s
- Catches/Stumpings
- Type of bowler (Fast/FM/M/SLA/OB/LBG/LAC)
- No of balls bowled
- Runs conceded
- Wickets taken
- Bowling average
- Bowling RPO
- Bowling strike rate.
Certain other data is derived from the player career figures and perusal of scorecards. The derived data explained below.

- Innings Size index: The ability of the player to play long innings. Bradman and Zaheer (and now Lara/Sehwag) converted most of their 100s into big scores. Not Lamb, Mark Waugh or M.Amarnath.
- Expected balls per innings: The average number of balls expected to be faced by the player. Highest is Bradman with 175 balls.
- Expected runs per ball: Ranges from .75 for Jessop/Gilchrist to .2 for strokeless wonders. Product of above two generally works out to the Career average.
- Strokeplay index: How far can the batsman be moved into attacking situations. Ranges from 6 for Bradman/Jessop to 1 for C'Shekhar/Malcolm.
- Defensive index: How far can the batsman be moved into match saving situations. Ranges from 5 for Gavaskar/Atherton to 1 for C'Shekhar/Malcolm.
- Bad wicket technique: High for Hobbs/Gavaskar and low for Srikkanth/Smith.
- Adjustment factor: Provide for Trumper et al scoring runs on uncovered wickets.
- Fielding index: Gives an indication of the quality of players' ground fielding. Highest index is 5 for Constantine/Bland/Randall and Rhodes.
- Bowling type: Type of bowler – Attacking, Normal or Defensive.
- Variation index: Ability to vary the deliveries. Hadlee/Grimmett/Warne high.
- Effectivity index: Ability to use atmospheric conditions for Fast/Medium bowlers and ability to flight for spinners. Prasanna/Murali high and Emburey low.
- Fielding: Team's Run-saving based on Fielding Index. Catching ability on average catches per match (Hammond/Solkar/Mark Waugh fairly high).

2. Ground Data :

Around the world, all test playing grounds including Sharjah have been included. Each ground has 6 index values.

- The support to Fast Bowlers (On a scale of 1 to 5)
- The support to Medium Pace Bowlers (On a scale of 1 to 5)
- The support to Spin Bowlers (On a scale of 1 to 5)
- A Run-Index for the ground (On a scale of 5 to 25). These have been built based on an article which appeared in Sportstar during the early 90s and have been updated since.
- Rain Index : Ranges from 5 for Manchester (almost every match will be affected by rain) to Sydney (almost always sunny).
- Close of play Index : Ranges from 4 for UK Grounds (Good chance of 2 Hours after Close of Play) to 1 for Calcutta (virtually no chance of extension of play). This factor has an impact on the number of overs bowled during the day.

3. Current Form :

This is randomised by the Computer for each player. The form index ranges from 4 (In Great form) to 1 (In poor form). Each block of 50 balls safely negotiated by the player will improve his form. The captain has to take into account the form and shepherd his players through poor form phases.

4. Rain

Rain is an integral part of the game, especially if a match is played at Manchester, Galle or Port of Spain. The concept of rain is built into the game depending on the ground rain index. Complex calculations determine the occurrence and duration of rain. It is also possible that matches take place without any occurrence of rain.

5. Simulation :

The match is, in reality, between two external captains who have at their disposal the players as resources. They are responsible for all actions including team selection, batting orders, strategies and fine tuning of plays.

The simulation is a complex process. Each ball is a mini-match and the complete match consists of x such mini-matches. For each ball, a total of no less than 30 randomising decisions are taken to decide on the outcome of ball. Some of the factors depend on the quality of the players involved, some on the match situation and some on the decisions taken by the two non-playing captains. These are briefly described below.

- The characteristics of the batsman who is batting. 13 factors are used.
- His form at the start of innings.
- How long has he been batting. Form improves as he settles down but he will get tired.
- The characteristics of the bowler who bowls the ball. 11 factors are used.
- What is the bowler type (See note below).
- His form at the start of the innings.
- How long is his current spell, breaks taken care of. Fast bowlers lose some effectiveness after 10, Medium after 15 and Spinners after 20 overs. - What is the condition of the ball, how old is the same.
- What is the time of day. Early mornings will favour seamers.
- Ground characteristics, both in terms of support to bowler type and run getting index.
- What is the average of the fielding index of the team. This will have an impact on the runs taken by the batsman.
- What is the average of the catching index of the team. This will have a slight impact on the wicket falling scenario.
- What is the bowling strategy. The fielding captain will be allowed to select one of 8 bowling strategies (ranging from completely wicket-taking (8 fielders near the bat) all-out defence (all at the boundary)) for both the bowlers. He/she has to take into account the match situation, ball situation, bowler bowling the current over and the specific skills of the batsman. The strategies can vary between the two bowlers. These can be changed at any time.
- What is the batting strategy. The batting captain will be allowed to select one of 5 batting strategies (ranging from all-out attack to all-out defence) for both the batsmen. He/she has to take into account the match situation, ball situation, bowler bowling the current over and the specific skills of the batsman. Nothing will be gained by asking Atherton to attack or Jessop to defend. The strategies can vary between the two batsmen. These can be changed at any time.
- What is the innings status. A number of factors are used in this.
- Is there a Run control option in force. This is mainly to let a senior batsman control the strike when batting with a tail-ender. Runs will be declined during early part of the over and odd number of runs will be attempted during later part.

Note: Only Sobers has bowled at the top level with equal effectiveness as a seam bowler and a spinner. So only for Sobers will the captain be asked at the beginning of each over as to what type of bowling he wants Sobers to do.

The Captain, whose role is a combination of on-field captain and off-field coach, has to use his resources very effectively. He should make his bowling changes with care, give his bowlers required rest, plan his strategies sharply, decide on how to optimise the resources at his disposal, especially outstanding resources such as Bradman et al.

6. Teams selected:

The two teams which were selected are given below. Since each team had two outstanding fast bowlers, two great spinners and a top all-rounder, it was decided that the same team would play in all 5 locations.

All-time Post-war England XI

Hutton
Gooch
Dexter
May
Cowdrey
Botham
Knott (wk)
Laker
Underwood
Trueman
Statham
12th man: Randall
All-time Post-war World XI
Gavaskar
Richards B A
Richards I V A
Lara
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist (wk)
Warne
Marshall
Muralitharan
Lillee
12th man: Rhodes
It is gratifying to see that the World XI is a time-less one in that if I were to select one today, I may not make a single change. Ponting for Barry Richards perhaps, maybe not, since opening is a specialist position. I would dearly love to have Wasim Akram, but at whose expense ???

As far as the England team is concerned, maybe the same holds good. Possibly Pietersen for Cowdrey.

In addition to the five Test series, a one-off "Test" was played between the team selected by a lucky reader (P.J.Mickleburgh) and an eleven selected by Christopher Martin-Jenkins.

The second part will follow within a few days. This will contain all six scorecards and reports.

Finally let me assure the readers that this is not an attempt to plug any of our company products, as insinuated by couple of readers earlier, possibly when their favourite player was positioned below the top. I have nothing to sell, no products, no services, nothing !!!

Full post
The top players of the last 40 years

This is the third article to round off the series I had undertaken to analyse the players who played ODIs and Tests

Jacques Kallis: a class act in Tests and ODIs, with bat and ball © AFP
This is the third article to round off the series I had undertaken to analyse the players who played ODIs and Tests. The first looked at the
top batsmen and the second looked at the top bowlers. This one looks at the top players over these forty years, combining batting, bowling and fielding. The base for this analysis are the two earlier analysis. So detailed explanations will not be given.

The key points are mentioned below.

1. Tests and ODIs carry equal weight of 50 points. I do not subscribe to the view that ODIs should carry lower weight. Over the years the best players have demonstrated equal commitment and performed at the top level in both formats. It would be unfair to treat these two formats differently. Let me confess that I would never accord any form of T20 this equal status.

2. Batting and Bowling carry equal weight, (viz) 45 points each, i-e, 22.5 each for Tests and ODIs. There is a very important adjustment made on these to take care of the specialist players. This is explained below.

3. Fielding carries a weight of 10 points, split equally between Tests and ODIs. 5 points will be given for 500 dismissals in both formats. I know this will benefit the wicket-keepers. Let me say that that is the main purpose, to reward the most difficult of cricketing tasks.

4. In summary, the following adjustments are built in the batting and bowling analysis. This has been given to preempt questions on these.
- Period based adjustment for batting average and strike rate (for ODIs).
- Period based adjustment for bowling average and runs per over.
- Weighted bowler quality for batting and batsmen quality for bowling.
- Quality of wickets captured for bowling.
- Peer comparisons for batting average and strike rate (for ODIs).
- Peer comparisons for bowling average and runs per over.
- Team strengths incorporated in batting and bowling valuations.

6. For the Batting and Bowling analyses, I had set 1000 runs and 100 wickets as the cut-off levels. However I have to do it differently here as otherwise, great specialist players such as Lara and McGrath will miss out. Hence I have kept the cut-off at 20 Tests and 40 ODI matches respectively. The cut-off for ODIs is kept at a slightly lower level of 40 to take care of the early years when a player could play for 5 years and play only 40 matches.

5. Finally the very significant and major adjustment I have done to benefit the specialist players. This is essential since the all-rounders start with a built-in advantage, securing points on both. In fact before this adjustment, 17 of the top-20 were all-rounders. The adjustment methodology is explained below.

- First the total of unadjusted batting and bowling points are determined.
- The proportion of batting points out of this total of batting+bowling points is determined. If this proportion is less than 0.33, the player is deemed to be a specialist batsman (who might or might not bowl) and his batting points are adjusted by upto 12.5%. The 12.5% will be applicable for pure batsmen such as Hayden, Gilchrist, Dravid et al.
- The proportion of bowling points out of this total of batting+bowling points is determined. If this proportion is less than 0.33, the player is a specialist bowler (who could hold a bat almost always) and his bowling points are adjusted by upto 12.5%. There is a slight difference to batting in that the bowlers always bat and will never have zero batting points. The highest adjustment of around 9% is for bowlers who are very average batsmen such as Alderman, McGrath et al.
- This adjustment is done separately for Test matches and ODIs to take care of varying player performances. Tendulkar is only a "batsman who bowls" in Tests, with 44 wickets, but is almost an all-rounder in ODIs, with 154 wickets. Similarly there are bowlers who have performed as a batsman more effectively in ODIs than Tests.

Since the Australia-New Zealand Test finished early on the fifth day I was able to include that Test and make these the end-of-season analysis. The impact of the Test is that Ponting slipped down a place while Johnson and Ross Taylor moved up.

Let us look at the tables. There is so much data that it is impossible to present everything. Since most of the data has been presented and discussed in the previous two articles, only the player analysis related tables are presented here. The first table shows the total points and Test/ODI split.

SNo TotPts Player name        Cty    Test    ODIs
1. 60.80 Kallis J.H Saf 31.06 29.74 2. 57.42 Pollock S.M Saf 27.16 30.26 3. 56.96 Tendulkar S.R Ind 26.57 30.39 4. 55.30 Wasim Akram Pak 23.97 31.33 5. 55.17 Imran Khan Pak 28.10 27.07 6. 54.38 Kapil Dev N Ind 25.24 29.14 7. 53.48 Hadlee R.J Nzl 27.14 26.34 8. 52.83 Waugh S.R Aus 26.92 25.91 9. 52.12 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 21.50 30.62 10. 51.83 Richards I.V.A Win 23.17 28.66 11. 51.75 Botham I.T Eng 27.47 24.28 12. 50.65 Muralitharan M Slk 25.58 25.07 13. 49.59 Warne S.K Aus 26.67 22.92 14. 49.52 Cairns C.L Nzl 23.05 26.47 15. 49.09 Flintoff A Eng 21.66 27.43 16. 49.03 Border A.R Aus 25.86 23.17 17. 47.16 Hooper C.L Win 20.99 26.17 18. 47.09 Waugh M.E Aus 21.97 25.12 19. 46.68 Vettori D.L Nzl 21.68 24.99 20. 46.52 Chappell G.S Aus 23.94 22.58 21. 46.15 Vaas WPUJC Slk 20.46 25.69 22. 45.35 Sehwag V Ind 20.49 24.86 23. 45.28 Gayle C.H Win 18.79 26.49 24. 45.27 Ponting R.T Aus 24.11 21.16 25. 44.97 Gilchrist A.C Aus 20.92 24.05 26. 44.27 Lara B.C Win 24.54 19.73 27. 44.10 Waqar Younis Pak 20.38 23.72 28. 43.82 Marshall M.D Win 24.10 19.72 29. 43.40 Ganguly S.C Ind 18.12 25.28 30. 43.15 Shahid Afridi Pak 14.74 28.40 Kallis sits at the top of this collection of outstanding players on merit. His status as an all-rounder par excellence is fully justified. A self-effacing performer, it is difficult to think of a single match in which he has not performed in one area or other. In international matches his tally of 21456 runs, 512 wickets and 255 catches is unlikely to be surpassed ever. As far as runs/wkts against average opposition teams, let me remind the readers of two things. One is that an adjustment has been made for the team quality. Sceond is that almost every top player, at one time or other would have got some relatively easy runs/wkts.

If there is a surprise at the second-placed player, it will only be an indication of the quiet manner in which the unheralded Shaun Pollock has performed in the international scene. And if there is a criticism of this high placing it will only be in the minds of the biased and partisan. In international matches his tally of 7300 runs, 814 wickets and 168 catches is an indication of his outstanding skills. His bowling average is either side of 24 in the two forms of the game. He Test batting average of 32.32 is higher than that of many an established Test batsman.

Tendulkar is next. What does one say of this great player, inarguably amongst the three greatest players of all time in anyone's book. How can a guy be so good in whatever he does. The best in many batting milestones, no mean bowler in ODIs and helped in Tests by the specialist player adjustment. That his still-increasing tally of international 31045 runs will remain forever the Everest to be scaled, like the 19-wickets capture of Laker, is undisputed. To boot, 188 wickets and 226 catches. Finally how can such a great player be so unaffected by success and adulation. A fairly dubious ball-tampering charge remains the single grey-mark in 21 years of playing at the top level.

Now come two Pakistani great players. First Wasim Akram, among the greatest left-handed bowlers of all time and a fearless attacking batsman. He overcame personal health problems with such a level of performance that he should be a role model for any aspiring sportsman. His international tally stands at 6615 runs, 916 wickets and 119 catches. Undoubtedly a candidate for the best ever left-handed all-rounder.

Then the charismatic Imran Khan. His batting only suffers in comparison to his bowling. His bowling performance against India in the series is among the best ever in the sub-continent. He missed over 15 Tests as a bowler, otherwise he would be placed higher. And let us not forget that his captaincy record is outside the scope of this analysis. His numbers stand at 7516 runs, 544 wickets and 63 catches.

The top-10 list is completed by Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee, Steve Waugh, Jayasuriya and Viv Richards. One could argue on the relative placements. However these ten are among the best players of all time.

Two each from South Africa, Pakistan, India and one each from Australia, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and West Indies comprise the top-10.

Just outside the top-10 are Muralitharan and Warne. Many a specialist great player like Lara, McGrath, Dravid, Gilchrist, Kumble et al are outside the top-10, but in the top-30. This is understandable and should be accepted by all. After all we are talking about players, not batsmen or bowlers.

To view/download the complete table list, please click/right-click here and save the file.

Now for three more support tables. First the table showing the total points, split into batting, bowling and fielding.

SNo TotPts Player name        Cty    Bat     Bow    Fld
1. 60.80 Kallis J.H Saf 35.54 22.71 2.55 2. 57.42 Pollock S.M Saf 23.22 32.53 1.68 3. 56.96 Tendulkar S.R Ind 43.74 10.96 2.26 4. 55.30 Wasim Akram Pak 20.42 33.69 1.19 5. 55.17 Imran Khan Pak 25.33 29.21 0.63 6. 54.38 Kapil Dev N Ind 25.52 27.59 1.27 7. 53.48 Hadlee R.J Nzl 21.08 31.77 0.63 8. 52.83 Waugh S.R Aus 34.36 16.29 2.18 9. 52.12 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 31.08 19.21 1.83 10. 51.83 Richards I.V.A Win 38.07 11.66 2.10 11. 51.75 Botham I.T Eng 24.55 25.70 1.50 12. 50.65 Muralitharan M Slk 7.88 41.11 1.66 13. 49.59 Warne S.K Aus 13.48 34.21 1.90 14. 49.52 Cairns C.L Nzl 25.06 23.69 0.77 15. 49.09 Flintoff A Eng 24.21 23.94 0.94 16. 49.03 Border A.R Aus 35.34 11.01 2.68 17. 47.16 Hooper C.L Win 27.63 17.35 2.17 18. 47.09 Waugh M.E Aus 32.18 12.08 2.83 19. 46.68 Vettori D.L Nzl 20.90 24.61 1.17 20. 46.52 Chappell G.S Aus 33.52 11.57 1.43 21. 46.15 Vaas WPUJC Slk 17.24 28.12 0.78 22. 45.35 Sehwag V Ind 34.76 9.23 1.36 23. 45.28 Gayle C.H Win 28.97 14.66 1.66 24. 45.27 Ponting R.T Aus 41.82 0.28 3.17 25. 44.97 Gilchrist A.C Aus 36.07 0.00 8.90 26. 44.27 Lara B.C Win 41.43 0.00 2.84 27. 44.10 Waqar Younis Pak 10.20 33.41 0.49 28. 43.82 Marshall M.D Win 13.36 30.10 0.36 29. 43.40 Ganguly S.C Ind 31.53 10.18 1.69 30. 43.15 Shahid Afridi Pak 26.69 15.53 0.93 To view/download the complete table, please click/right-click here and save the file.

Now for the second support table. This shows the base numbers in terms of Test matches, runs, wickets, catches and averages.

SNo  Player name        Cty Mat  Runs   Avge Wkts   Avge Ct/S
Full post
Top ODI performers in each position: a quick follow-up

This is a follow-up to the article published a few days back, and incorporates strike rates into the analysis

MS Dhoni has an excellent ODI batting index, which is next only to that of Viv Richards © AP
This is a follow-up to the
article published a few days back. Alex had suggested that I do this based on the strike rates as the defining measure. I was not very comfortable with that since I think the batting average is a very important measure. Then Mareeswaran made the excellent suggestion that I use the combination of batting average and strike rate.

The ODI Batting Index (OBI), which is a product of batting average and strike rate, was used by me as part of television analysis during 2002/3. Afterwards it has undergone many transformations, Strike rate remaining common but multiplied by batting average, runs per innings and even extended batting average. However the original idea is still the best. The batting average is the most accepted of all measures.

First I am going to present the top-10 batsmen, based on OBI, based on their career figures. This has been given to let the readers have a perspective. An OBI of 50.00 has not been reached so far !!!
1   Hussey M.E.K         Aus  115   38   4136   53.71   88.4   47.46
2   Dhoni M.S            Ind  143   37   5420   51.13   89.9   45.95
3   Richards I.V.A       Win  167   24   6721   47.00   90.2   42.40
4   Zaheer Abbas         Pak   60    6   2572   47.63   84.8   40.39
5 ~ Bevan M.G            Aus  196   67   6912   53.58   74.2   39.74
6   Tendulkar S.R        Ind  431   41  17598   45.12   86.3   38.92
7   Pietersen K.P        Eng   88   15   3220   44.11   86.7   38.24
8   de Villiers A.B      Saf   92   13   3333   42.19   88.9   37.52
9 ~ Klusener L           Saf  137   50   3576   41.10   89.9   36.96
10   Symonds A            Aus  161   33   5088   39.75   92.4   36.75
As per request of some readers I have given also the OBIdx based on the eminently acceptable Runs per innings measure. This removes the anamolies of excessive not outs. However the main tables are still based on batting average since the not outs impact there is minimal. Position no.3 will always have lower number of not outs than no.7 and is applicable to all.
1   Zaheer Abbas         Pak   60   2572   42.87   84.8   36.35
2   Richards I.V.A       Win  167   6721   40.25   90.2   36.30
3   Tendulkar S.R        Ind  431  17598   40.83   86.3   35.22
4   Sehwag V             Ind  215   7091   32.98  103.5   34.14
5   Dhoni M.S            Ind  143   5420   37.90   89.9   34.06
6 ~ Gilchrist A.C        Aus  279   9619   34.48   96.9   33.42
7   de Villiers A.B      Saf   92   3333   36.23   88.9   32.22
8   Hussey M.E.K         Aus  115   4136   35.97   88.4   31.78
9   Pietersen K.P        Eng   88   3220   36.59   86.7   31.72
10 ~ Smith G.C            Saf  147   5613   38.18   83.1   31.73
First I worked out the all-match ODI Index for each batting position. In this case the OBI will be appropriate since the same methodology is used to determine the individual batsmen figures. Since the comparisons are across all batsmen at the same position the impact of not outs is minimised. The Strike rates are for that position. In order to ensure that flashes in the pan do not spoil the comparisons, a minimum limit of 1000 runs is set for Opening, no.3, no.4, no.5 and no.6 positions. For the position 7, the bar is set at 700 runs.

The OBI of the batsman in the relevant position is divided by the all-match OBI for that position and the ratio is arrived at. The tables are ordered on this ratio and the top-10 shown. Let us now look at the tables.

Analysis of Opening position
ODI Index for all matches: 22.50
No Batsman Cty Inns No Runs Avge Balls S/R OBI AllIdx-%
Full post
ODI batting positions - the top performers

A look at batsmen who've done the best at each batting position in ODIs.

Michael Hussey averages 117.67 at the No.7 slot © Getty Images
This is an analysis suggested by reader(s) whose names elude me. It is an excellent suggestion in that it will enable us to get a very good handle on the best performers at each batting position.

First I worked out the all-match average for each batting position. In this case the average will be appropriate since the same methodology is used to determine the individual batsmen figures. Since the comparisons are across all batsmen at the same position the impact of not outs is minimised. In order to ensure that flashes in the pan do not spoil the comparisons, a minimum limit of 1000 runs is set for Opening, no.3, no.4, no.5 and no.6 positions. For the positions 7 and 8, the bar is set at 500 runs.

The batting average of the batsman in the relevant position is divided by the all-match batting average for that position and the ratio is arrived at. The tables are ordered on this ratio and the top-10 shown along with the last player in that position. Let us now look at the tables.

Analysis of opening position. All matches average: 32.21
No Batsman Cty Inns No Runs Avge % of all avge
1. Dilshan T.M Slk 25 2 1263 54.91 170.5% 2. Turner G.M Nzl 29 5 1197 49.88 154.8% 3. Tendulkar S.R Ind 319 23 14482 48.93 151.9% 4. Dippenaar H.H Saf 43 6 1752 47.35 147.0% 5. Watson S.R Aus 43 5 1794 47.21 146.6% 6. Lara B.C Win 52 5 2166 46.09 143.1% 7. Greenidge C.G Win 120 10 4993 45.39 140.9% 8. Hayden M.L Aus 147 14 5891 44.29 137.5% 9. Waugh M.E Aus 141 11 5729 44.07 136.8% 10. Chanderpaul S Win 74 9 2814 43.29 134.4% ... ... 83. Obuya D.O Ken 45 1 1012 23.00 71.4% We are in for a minor surprise. Two opening batsmen have moved ahead of the greatest ODI batsman ever, Tendulkar. This proves without any doubt that Dilshan is among the most explosive of ODI openers now playing. Not to forget his strike rate. Turner averaged nearing 50 when batting was not that easy.

Now comes the master. An average of nearly 50 maintained over 300 matches while scoring nearly 15,000 runs tells the tale. There has been no better ODI player and probably never will be. Note how high Watson is placed, higher than masters such as Lara, Greenidge, Hayden and Mark Waugh.

Analysis of no. 3 position. All matches average: 32.90
Full post
Bowler consistency analysis - a new take

A look at bowlers who have taken three to ten wickets in a Tests in the most number of consecutive matches

Muttiah Muralitharan has taken ten or more wickets in a Test in four consecutive matches © AFPs
First I wanted to do an analysis of the ODI high innings in view of the momentous tryst with destiny of one colossus at Gwalior. Then I decided not to do so since the results may not be exactly what is wanted by the myriad of Tendulkar fans and I am not ready to read and answer hundreds of comments.

The innings, one of the greatest ever, need not be and is not the best ODI innings ever. The numbers 189/189/194/175/183/149/140/158 et al are floating around. By Tendulkar's own high standards, the 175/138/143/134/98 innings lay claim to being his best. But not to take away from the greatness and perfection of the innings. There might be greater innings but certainly no greater batsman during the past six decades. The gap is widening and soon would be insurmountable.

This is similar to the 400 which, despite being the highest Test innings, is nowhere near innings associated with the numbers 270/153/154/281/149/213/293 et al.

Instead I have come out with an analysis based on the excellent suggestion made by Alex Tierno. This is to determine the successful bowler sequences from a minimum of 3 wkts per Test to 10 wickets per Test. The more I did the work the more I felt that this is an excellent method of determining bowler consistency.

I needed to create a completely new Database of Player-Match records. However this will be very useful since I can do many new analysis without resorting to individual programs. That will be a great bonus.

Let us see the tables starting with 3 or more wickets. I have shown the first three in each classification. Where there are multiple bowlers with same number of Tests, the one with the highest WpT figure is shown.

Wkts/test Bowler            # of  First  # of  Avge
tests  MtNo   Wkts   WpT
>= 3 wkts Warne S.K 39 1576 244 6.3 >= 3 wkts Muralitharan M 34 1555 251 7.4 >= 3 wkts McGrath G.D 17 1718 88 5.2 There is a nice surprise in the bread-and-butter classification of 3+ wickets. Shane Warne has taken 3 or more wickets in 39 consecutive Tests, averaging 6.3 WpT (wickets per Test). Muralitharan has achieved this in 34 consecutive Tests averaging 7.4 WpT. This is a true measure of the consistency which these two great spinners employed throughout their careers.

At this point it is worth explaining that there could be 3+ wkts streaks of more than 17 Tests from either Warne or Murali. I have deliberately shown the top three bowlers, rather than the top three bowling streaks, to broaden the scope of the anaysis.

As expected Muralitharan dominates the other classifications, leading in the 10+, 9+, 8+(shared), 7+, 6+, 5+ and 4+ wickets categories.

Wkts/test Bowler            # of  First  # of  Avge
tests  MtNo   Wkts   WpT
Full post
Analysing Test results by host country

A look at the countries which have produced the most number of results over each decade

Analysis of Test results - by team has been done quite often. This article covers the other aspect, viz., by host country. I have taken a single theme of Test match results by country for the last four decades. The period has been selected because of the immediate relevance and to study the impact of the ODI games. The only measures are number of matches played, results and the result %.

For this particular analysis it does not matter whether the results were home wins or away wins. It is also quite possible that an innings win might be a dull mach when compared to a close draw. However I have a limited perspective here of looking only at results. In another later article I will look at excluding "dull" results and including "exciting" draws.

|<-1970-2010->|<---1970s-->|<---1980s-->|<---1990s-->|<---2000s-->|
|   M   R   % |  M   R   % |  M   R   % |  M   R   % |  M   R   % |
ALL|1277 831 65.1|197 113 57.4|267 144 53.9|347 223 64.3|460 346 75.2|
AUS| 216 165 76.4| 43 35 81.4| 55 35 63.6| 56 42 75.0| 60 51 85.0| BAN| 32 28 87.5| | | 1 1 100| 29 25 86.2| ENG| 231 151 65.4| 47 26 55.3| 57 35 61.4| 57 37 64.9| 70 53 75.7| IND| 153 86 56.2| 34 18 52.9| 42 17 40.5| 30 22 73.3| 47 29 61.7| NZL| 131 76 58.0| 21 11 52.4| 28 12 42.9| 40 24 60.0| 42 29 69.0| PAK| 122 65 53.3| 14 4 28.6| 43 19 44.2| 34 21 61.8| 31 21 67.7| SAF| 96 75 78.1| 4 4 100| | 36 24 66.7| 54 46 85.2| SRI| 96 65 67.7| | 12 7 58.3| 30 15 50.0| 54 43 79.6| WIN| 156 92 59.0| 34 15 44.1| 30 19 63.3| 41 27 65.9| 51 31 60.8| ZIM| 44 28 63.6| | | 22 10 45.5| 22 18 81.8| Country analysis

Barring the disastrous 1980s, Australian matches have produced results over 80% of the time. This figure is going up year by year. No doubt due to the sporting nature of the pitches there.

Not worth talking about Bangladesh since most of the results there are Bangladeshi losses. No offence meant.

England had a very dull 1970s decade but recovered well and are now comfortably having results in three out of four matches.

India seems to have the worst record amongst all countries. Even in the last decade, when the rest of the world, especially outside the subcontinent, produced result-oriented pitches, India had only a 60% result value. This is quite low for the modern game of Test cricket desperately trying to maintain spectator interest.

New Zealand was very poor during the first two decades but seems to be improving steadily. However it must be mentioned that quite a few results there are the result of diabolic poor quality pitches, especially during thge early-2000s.

There was a time when Pakistan had a result % of 28. Now they have progressed to 2 out of 3. Still ranks with India as not conducive to results.

South Africa must be the most improved country in this regard and are mirroring Australia in producing pitches with opportunities for both Batsmen and Bowlers. Incidentally there were two great exciting draws there recently.

Srilankan pitches were flat as recently as last decade with a result % of only 50. Now there is a sudden improvement and they have a lot more results, mostly for the home team (and Muralitharan).

West Indies are nearly as bad as India. Only around 60% of the matches produce results. The West Indies situation, with progressively weakening teams, is understandable.

Zimbabwe is somewhat like Bangladesh. They lose home matches quite regularly. However they have at least managed to draw quite a few home tests as shown by the low results %.

Decade analysis

Over the past 40 years, the result % has been 65, no doubt aided by the recent spurt in result matches. The last decade has been excellent with over 3 out of 4 matches decisive.

The 1970s were average with only 57% being result matches. Australia were the only exception to the safety-first method employed by home countries. Pakistan was exceptionally poor.

The 1980s was the nadir with even Australia falling into this mire. No country exceeded 64% and only around half the matches produced results. Pakistan improved but India and New Zealand fell back.

There was a marked move up in the 1990s. The result % moved up to 64. Australia had 75% result matches but the real improvement was in India with 73% result matches, possibly through Kumble.

The last decade was an excellent one overall with 75% result matches. The only two countries pulling down the result figure are India, with 61.7% and West Indies, with 60.8%. As already stated, West Indies situation is understandable. However, the Indian scene, with a team aspiring and succeeding to go to the top and possessing an outstanding team is inexplicable. I hope the Indian pitches change quickly and we see a 75+% during the coming decade.

What I would like to see in the 2010s decade is for the overall figure to go upto 80%. I would prefer that this is achieved through India and West Indies consistently reaching 75% results.

I have stayed away from a graphic representation of these numbers since the figures any readers would be interested in are readily available and the readers can draw their own conclusions. Nothing is gained by doing a graph for the sake of showing something visual.

From this month onwards I will be doing at least two light-weight posts such as this and the preceding one. Over the past few weeks many readers have asked for special types of analysis and most of these would fall into this category.

Full post
A team-wise analysis of ODI opening partnerships

An analysis of first-wicket stands - the teams for which these are most prolific, quickest, and more

This is an analysis of ODI opening partnerships - by team. Normally strike rates are not incorporated in such analysis. In order to be absolutely certain of the conclusions, I have only included matches for which I have certain information of balls at which the wickets fell. A total of 1636 matches (55%) qualify. For the other matches I have also done such analysis using extrapolation. However I have not included these matches to avoid comments which will miss the main point and highlight the subjective or extrapolative methods.

I have also done a Runs per partnerships measure rather than the Average, in other words ignoring the unbroken partnerships. This does not really matter since very few opening partnerships remain unbroken. The analysis is current upto match # 2948, the fifth ODI between Australia and Pakistan.

1. Opening partnerships - by Runs per Partnership (RpP)
Team          OpP   Runs   RpP
Australia 340 14725 43.31 India 389 15950 41.00 South Africa 298 11253 37.76 Sri Lanka 328 11292 34.43 England 244 8394 34.40 Pakistan 318 10596 33.32 West Indies 258 8289 32.13 New Zealand 274 8362 30.52 Zimbabwe 262 7387 28.19 Bangladesh 187 4620 24.71 Kenya 94 2136 22.72 Considering all partnerships, irrespective of size, Australia leads with an average RpP of 43.21. India follows with 41.00, some way behind. South Africa follows with 37.76, leaving quite some daylight after India.

In all these tables, the last three positions are held by Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Kenya. Leaving these teams aside, the fourth from last position should be the one to interest us. In this table New Zealand occupies that position, with an average RpP of 30.52, nearly 40% behind Australia.

2. Opening partnerships - by Partnership Strike rate

Team          OpP   Runs  Balls    S/R
Australia 340 14725 16414 89.7 Sri Lanka 328 11292 12850 87.9 India 389 15950 18379 86.8 New Zealand 274 8362 10204 81.9 Pakistan 318 10596 12947 81.8 South Africa 298 11253 13832 81.4 England 244 8394 10452 80.3 West Indies 258 8289 11003 75.3 Zimbabwe 262 7387 10546 70.0 Bangladesh 187 4620 6907 66.9 Kenya 94 2136 3354 63.7 Australia's strike rate for all these partnerships is 89.7, no doubt due to the presence of Gilchrist and Hayden. Sri Lanka, led by Jayasuriya and Dilshan, come in next with 87.9. India, aided by Tendulkar and Sehwag, follows closely with 86.8. New Zealand, despite the lower RpP value, have scored these runs at a decent rate of 81.9.

The strike rate of West Indies, despite the presence of Gayle, has been only 75.3.

Now I have done a special analysis of partnerships, only those of 50 runs and above. These partnerships lay the foundation for good scores. Both the size and rate of scoring matter. I have used 50 instead of 100 since these are limited over matches and scoring 50 normally means that the opening spells, of around 10 overs, have been tackled, as also the first PowerPlay. Also it allows us to have decent number of partnerships for consideration (717, about 25%)

3. Opening partnerships ( >= 50 ) - by Runs per Partnership

Team          OpP    %     Runs   RpP
Full post
The best bowler, across years and formats

A month back, I had done an analysis on the the best batsmen, across years and formats; here is a corresponding analysis for bowlers

Muttiah Muralitharan: the leader in Tests and ODIs © AFP
Finally the analysis many of you have asked and been waiting for patiently. This has been on the drawing board for the past six months and I have had quite a few exchanges with many readers to fine-tune the analysis. A lot of care has been taken care to equalise performances by the players across years and across formats. This follows the
best batsman analysis.

First, the "Twelve Commandments" followed in doing the analysis.

1. Equal weight for Tests and ODIs. T20-Intls not included since many top players have not played any T20-I matches and anyhow very few matches have been played. Let the number of T20-I matches cross 1000 before we consider it worthy of inclusion in this type of analysis.
2. Recognise longevity measures, such as wickets captured, but make sure that the total weight does not exceed 20%.
3. Especially for ODIs, recognise and incorporate the important fact that during the early 20 years very few ODI matches were played.

4. Unlike Batting where there is no necessity to distinguish between Right and Left handers, there is a clear need to distinguish in the Bowling analysis between Pace bowlers and Spinners because of the significant difference in the three main bowling measures, viz., primarily the Bowling average and secondarily, the Strike rate and Bowling accuracy. Since this is much more pronounced in Test matches than ODI matches, the handling is different.
5. Recognise how the bowler has performed in comparison to his peers, in the Strike rate and Bowling accuracy measures, for both Tests and ODIs. Mura;litharan and Garner are outstanding in these comparisons.
6. Recognise the fact that wickets of top order batsmen should carry additional weight as compared to wickets of late order batsmen. Pathan and Anderson are the best in this regard.
7. Use only career level figures. Match performances, while very relevant, would make it difficult to be equitable to Tests and ODIs. The peer comparisons cover this to some extent.
8. Give weight for share of team wickets. This is quite relevant in Test cricket, but is probably more relevant in ODIs. A bowler is allowed to bowl only 20% of his team overs (barring rain-hit and abandoned matches). Overall a bowler might have shared around 18% of his team's bowling. As such a bowler who captures, say 22/23% of the team wickets has performed admirably and so on. Let me say that even the spinners have done quite well in this measure. Brett Lee leads in this measure.
9. My idea initially was not to distinguish between home and away performances in Tests. However the following table of the the top-5 bowlers changed my mind. Let me assure readers that enough away wickets have been captured by all these bowlers.
Overall   Home    Away    Ratio
Muralitharan 22.71 20.09 27.02 0.74 Warne 25.42 25.55 25.27 1.01 Kumble 29.65 24.90 37.36 0.67 McGrath 21.64 21.97 21.23 1.03 Walsh 24.44 23.15 25.66 0.90 It is clear that bowlers like Warne, even though he is a spinner, and McGrath performed better away than home. Muralitharan was less effective away, but still had a good away average. However Kumble was very average away. This fact has to be recognised and this has prompted to give some additional weight for away average. This is a change of heart and follows the batting ideas.
10. Since this analysis is limited to bowlers who played between 1970 and 2010, work out the algorithms based on these years. In other words, keep out of the equation Lohmann's outrageous figures. An average of 20.00 is the pinnacle, not halfway down the pole. This has helped to rationalise the analysis quite well.
11. Since this is a pure bowler based analysis, exclude the non-bowling factors such as Captaincy, Results, World Cup wins etc. McGrath, Garner and Warne might have won more matches and World Cups than Muralitharan, Ambrose and Hadlee but that should not be used to decide who is ahead in this bowling analysis.
12. I also decided that I would sum the points at rounded-integer level and would tie bowlers who have similar points. I would not use decimal points to separate any groups.

As usual there has to be a minimum criteria. I have decided on 200 combined international wickets AND minimum of 50 wickets in each format. This has allowed me to include Bond, Roberts, Jayasuriya and keep out Bedi, Chandrasekhar and Gibbs. Keeping a single qualification, a la Batting, 100 wickets in each format unfortunately gave me only 49 bowlers, which is quite a low sample.

The table below is quite illuminating and the ratios have been used in making the adjustments between Pace and Spin. For instance the base average for Test Pacers is 27.5 and for Test Spinners is 31.3. To that extent the Spinner would benefit. The base RpO for Test Pacers is 2.85 and for Spinners is 2.58. To that extent the Pace bowler would benefit. And so on... I have taken these numbers only for bowlers who have captured 100 wickets to ensure that the bar is set higher.

Tests played from 1970 - 2010 (only for bowlers who have taken 100 wkts)
Ratios to All
All   Pace   Spin              Pace       Spin
Avge: 28.6   27.5   31.3 - 13.8%      0.96       1.09
S/R:  62.4   57.8   72.8 - 25.9%      0.93       1.17
RpO:  2.75   2.85   2.58 - 10.4%      1.04       0.94
All ODIs (only for bowlers who have taken 100 wkts)
Full post

Showing 181 - 190 of 270