Anantha Narayanan
I was influenced by a recent comment by a reader on runs scored in winning causes
Let me take two players not often discussed. The first is Ganguly. He, and most of the knowledgeable Indian supporters, would agree that his majestic unbeaten 98 while orchestrating a great chasing win over Sri Lanka during 2001 was a far greater innings, arguably his best, than many a big 100. Ganguly might have missed a personal landmark but he did not miss the bigger objective. Would anyone, including Ganguly, have been satisfied if Ganguly had scored 5 more runs but India 5 less.
Now for Jimmy Adams. Would anyone rate his 208 against New Zealand higher than his outstanding unbeaten 48 against Wasim/Waqar/Razzak/Saqlain taking his team to an improbable one-wicket win leading to a rare series win. Even though Adams' innings was less than half of Mark Waugh's match-winning of 116 against South Africa, it was no less important.
Hence I have done an analysis of the runs scored by a batsman during his team's wins. It does not matter whether the batsman scored 12(Ambrose), 49(Paranavitana), 96(Shakib Al Hasan) or 309(Sehwag). The runs are considered and added. Not the 400, nor the 241.
Also I have not done an average of these scores. It will be certain that this average would be higher than his career batting average. I have rather looked at the % of share of the runs scored by his team. This will give a clear indication of his contributions. There is no comparison done across eras, across teams, across bowlers et al. It is almost like the peer comparison. In truth it is a peer comparison, but the comparison is only within the team, that too only in selected subset of matches. I have also not prepared tables across teams. Each table is for the concerned team.
The criteria is simple. The batsman should have been involved in 10 wins and scored over 2000 Test runs (exception for Bangladesh and Zimbabwe). The team runs are computed, sans extras.
Cty Batsman L Mat Runs Wins Runs TmRuns RpT % TS
Ind Viswanath G.R 91 6080 20 1637 9029 81.8 18.13 Ind Sidhu N.S 51 3202 13 1179 6680 90.7 17.65 Ind Dravid R 134 10823 44 4005 23227 91.0 17.24 Ind Tendulkar S.R 159 12773 51 4416 26993 86.6 16.36 Ind Gavaskar S.M 125 10122 23 1671 10417 72.7 16.04 Ind Vengsarkar D.B 116 6868 18 1187 7823 65.9 15.17 Ind Azharuddin M 99 6215 22 1609 10693 73.1 15.05 Ind Mansur Ali Khan 46 2793 12 846 5712 70.5 14.81 Ind Sehwag V 69 5757 25 1958 13228 78.3 14.80 Ind Amarnath M 69 4378 12 771 5772 64.2 13.36 Ind Engineer F.M 46 2611 13 774 5930 59.5 13.05 Ind Gambhir G ~ 25 2271 13 924 7203 71.1 12.83 Ind Laxman V.V.S 105 6741 36 2428 19479 67.4 12.46 Ind Chauhan C.P.S 40 2084 10 511 4425 51.1 11.55 Ind Shastri R.J 80 3830 10 492 4274 49.2 11.51The stylish Viswanath leads the Indian table, followed surprisingly by the irrepressible sardar, Sidhu. Then come the three greatest Indian batsmen ever, not necessarily in that order, Dravid, Tendulkar and Gavaskar. Note the somewhat low share of Ganguly (11.23%), possibly because of batting at no.6 position many a time.
Nzl Crowe M.D 77 5444 16 1219 7085 76.2 17.21 Nzl Richardson M.H ~ 38 2776 12 763 5019 63.6 15.20 Nzl McMillan C.D 55 3116 18 1186 7838 65.9 15.13 Nzl Wright J.G ~ 82 5334 21 1253 8430 59.7 14.86 Nzl Fleming S.P ~ 111 7172 33 2145 14637 65.0 14.65 Nzl Cairns C.L 62 3320 16 936 7393 58.5 12.66 Nzl Howarth G.P 47 2531 12 558 4655 46.5 11.99 Nzl Coney J.V 52 2668 17 814 6900 47.9 11.80 Nzl Astle N.J 81 4702 27 1239 11747 45.9 10.55 Nzl McCullum B.B 46 2283 13 563 5885 43.3 9.57 Nzl Hadlee R.J ~ 86 3124 22 790 8792 35.9 8.99 Nzl Vettori D.L ~ 94 3492 29 1101 12696 38.0 8.67 Nzl Parore A.C 78 2865 19 497 8744 26.2 5.68The number of wins are somewhat lower indicating New Zealand's rough ride over the years. However out of these, the greatest New Zealand batsman ever, Martin Crowe lives up to his reputation and is on top with a high value of 17+%.
Win Lara B.C ~ 131 11953 32 2929 14611 91.5 20.05 Win Sarwan R.R 81 5671 13 1210 6505 93.1 18.60 Win Sobers G.St.A ~ 93 8032 31 3097 16926 99.9 18.30 Win Adams J.C ~ 54 3010 21 1534 9045 73.0 16.96 Win EdeC Weekes 48 4455 16 1403 8324 87.7 16.85 Win Greenidge C.G 108 7558 57 4653 27970 81.6 16.64 Win Campbell S.L 52 2882 16 1068 6645 66.8 16.07 Win Walcott C.L 44 3798 12 1113 6955 92.8 16.00 Win Richardson R.B 86 5949 43 3059 19251 71.1 15.89 Win Worrell F.M.M 51 3860 18 1483 9359 82.4 15.85 Win Kanhai R.B 79 6227 27 2404 15248 89.0 15.77 Win Nurse S.M 29 2523 10 873 5569 87.3 15.68 Win Chanderpaul S ~ 121 8576 27 1933 12839 71.6 15.06 Win Lloyd C.H ~ 110 7515 43 3337 22217 77.6 15.02 Win Haynes D.L 116 7487 60 4041 27824 67.3 14.52Lara has contributed quite significantly, above 20%, to the (somewhat lower) proportion of wins during his career. From the strong West Indian teams of the 1980s, only Greenidge is present in the top-10. In fact Richards has a somewhat lower % of runs value of 13.9 although one must admit that he had a win ratio of greater than 50%.
What does this indicate. Possibly that the other batsmen were quite strong. However this is negated by the presence of all the top West Indian batsmen of the 1950s in the top-10. I am happy to see Jimmy Adams in the top-10.
Slk Sangakkara K.C ~ 85 7308 41 4179 22486 101.9 18.58 Slk de Silva P.A 93 6361 19 1467 8736 77.2 16.79 Slk Jayawardene D.P.M.D 107 8750 48 4155 25575 86.6 16.25 Slk Atapattu M.S 90 5502 31 2138 15653 69.0 13.66 Slk Jayasuriya S.T ~ 110 6973 40 2801 20634 70.0 13.57 Slk Samaraweera T.T 54 3787 30 2222 16748 74.1 13.27 Slk Ranatunga A ~ 93 5105 17 985 7801 57.9 12.63 Slk Tillakaratne H.P ~ 83 4545 24 1534 12221 63.9 12.55 Slk Dilshan T.M 57 3443 28 1843 15126 65.8 12.18 Slk Vaas WPUJC ~ 111 3087 43 1388 22578 32.3 6.15Not much to choose amongst the top Sri Lankan batsmen, Sangakkara leading the others quite comfortably. He has also averaged over 100 wickets per won Test.
Saf McGlew D.J 34 2440 11 1156 5285 105.1 21.87 Saf Smith G.C ~ 77 6343 40 3783 20252 94.6 18.68 Saf Wessels K.C ~ 40 2788 12 1044 5800 87.0 18.00 Saf Kallis J.H 131 10277 64 5099 31306 79.7 16.29 Saf Kirsten G ~ 101 7289 48 3800 23961 79.2 15.86 Saf Barlow E.J 30 2516 11 941 6324 85.5 14.88 Saf Cullinan D.J 70 4554 34 2325 16048 68.4 14.49 Saf Cronje W.J 68 3714 32 2156 15214 67.4 14.17 Saf de Villiers A.B 52 3558 26 1793 13056 69.0 13.73 Saf Hudson A.C 35 2007 13 876 6544 67.4 13.39 Saf McLean R.A 40 2120 12 768 5749 64.0 13.36 Saf Amla H.M 37 2460 21 1389 10713 66.1 12.97 Saf Gibbs H.H 90 6167 44 2877 22607 65.4 12.73 Saf Prince A.G ~ 48 3074 28 1719 13546 61.4 12.69 Saf Rudolph J.A ~ 35 2028 12 721 6371 60.1 11.32McGlew, the great South African batsmen of the 1960s has an excellent 21+% of run share in won matches and has scored over 100 runs per Test. Then come Smith, Wessels and Kallis. Note also Smith's high win %.
Aus Bradman D.G 52 6996 30 4813 17036 160.4 28.25 Aus Chappell G.S 87 7110 38 3595 19209 94.6 18.72 Aus Simpson R.B 62 4869 22 2015 11264 91.6 17.89 Aus Lawry W.M ~ 67 5234 20 1853 10714 92.7 17.30 Aus Harvey R.N ~ 79 6149 41 3253 19174 79.3 16.97 Aus Hill C ~ 49 3412 25 2223 13200 88.9 16.84 Aus Walters K.D 74 5357 28 2303 14211 82.2 16.21 Aus McDonald C.C 47 3107 23 1557 9994 67.7 15.58 Aus Ponting R.T 136 11341 90 7754 50453 86.2 15.37 Aus Slater M.J 74 5312 44 3508 22833 79.7 15.36 Aus Ponsford W.H 29 2122 16 1508 9884 94.2 15.26 Aus Hayden M.L ~ 103 8626 71 6038 39634 85.0 15.23 Aus Trumper V.T 48 3163 22 1717 11427 78.0 15.03 Aus Hassett A.L 43 3073 26 1947 13123 74.9 14.84 Aus Hussey M.E.K ~ 42 3317 27 2359 15899 87.4 14.84Bradman has scored over 28% of the team runs in won games. One more insurmountable number for the other batsmen to contend with. Then come a number of middle era Australians, led by Chappell. Ponting barely makes to the top-10. Hayden and Hussey find their places in the top-15. I am happy to see Victor Trumper in the top-15.
Pak Shoaib Mohammad 45 2705 12 1055 4927 87.9 21.41 Pak Saeed Anwar ~ 55 4052 23 2254 11079 98.0 20.34 Pak Inzamam-ul-Haq 120 8830 49 4690 25012 95.7 18.75 Pak Younis Khan 63 5260 22 2241 12570 101.9 17.83 Pak Javed Miandad 124 8832 39 2923 17298 74.9 16.90 Pak Asif Iqbal 58 3575 10 759 4934 75.9 15.38 Pak Mohammad Yousuf 82 7023 32 2617 17627 81.8 14.85 Pak Mudassar Nazar 76 4114 23 1511 10311 65.7 14.65 Pak Zaheer Abbas 78 5062 22 1530 10483 69.5 14.60 Pak Ijaz Ahmed 60 3315 23 1487 10385 64.7 14.32 Pak Mohsin Khan 48 2709 18 1134 8060 63.0 14.07 Pak Aamer Sohail ~ 47 2823 22 1365 9970 62.0 13.69 Pak Majid Khan 63 3931 13 849 6230 65.3 13.63 Pak Saleem Malik 103 5768 39 1880 17010 48.2 11.05 Pak Kamran Akmal 43 2226 13 776 7443 59.7 10.43Shoaib Mohammad leads with a 21+%. Saeed Anwar is also high up there. Then come the three modern greats, led by Inzamam. Note Younis Khan's 100+ runs per test in won games.
Cty Batsman Mat Runs Wins Runs TmRuns RpT % TS
How far ahead is the top player in any list is a key to answering the question of whether a high mark set by a player will be reached
Since I normally can only show 5/6 tables in any article to make the same readable, I will do the Test Batting now and follow with one on Test Bowling.
If an active player is at the top of an all-time list, he/she keeps on widening the gap on the second placed player, unless the top two or three are also active. This is true of the aggregate type of measures. On the other hand in performance related measures, it does not matter since it is possible for later players to catch up with the particular measure.
1. Table of Batting averages (minimum 200 runs)
SNo.Batsman Cty Mat Inns No Runs Avge %
To view the complete list, please click here.
2. Table of Runs per Test (minimum 2000 runs)
SNo.Batsman Cty Mat RpT %
There were two very good suggestions to the piece I did last week, which were worth following up
The usual criteria apply. For the first table, the minimum is 80 innings and a batting average exceeding 25.00. For the second, I have retained the mid-point limits of 4000 runs and 45 Tests as the cut-off for batsmen.
SNo.For Batsman |<---Career---->|Start-third| Mid-third| End-third |Mat Runs Avge|Runs Avge|Runs Avge|Runs Avge | | | | 1.Aus Bradman D.G | 52 6996 99.94|2229 96.91|2643 97.89|2124 106.20 2.Eng Sutcliffe H | 54 4555 60.73|1805 78.48|1537 56.93|1213 48.52 3.Eng Barrington K.F | 82 6806 58.67|2111 54.13|2379 62.61|2316 59.38 4.Win EdeC Weekes | 48 4455 58.62|1602 66.75|1643 63.19|1210 46.54 5.Eng Hammond W.R | 85 7249 58.46|2519 58.58|2396 61.44|2334 55.57 6.Win Sobers G.St.A | 93 8032 57.78|2781 61.80|2783 60.50|2468 51.42 7.Eng Hobbs J.B | 61 5410 56.95|1773 57.19|2019 63.09|1618 50.56 8.Eng Hutton L | 79 6971 56.67|2193 56.23|2661 59.13|2117 54.28 9.Aus Ponting R.T |136 11341 55.87|2535 40.89|4530 68.64|4276 57.01 10.Slk Sangakkara K.C | 85 7308 55.36|1951 47.59|2258 48.04|3099 70.43 11.Pak Mohammad Yousuf | 82 7023 54.87|1712 40.76|2273 56.83|3038 66.04 12.Saf Kallis J.H |131 10277 54.66|2678 43.19|4209 67.89|3390 52.97 13.Ind Tendulkar S.R |159 12773 54.59|3617 50.24|5202 63.44|3954 49.42 14.Aus Chappell G.S | 87 7110 53.86|2310 53.72|2394 53.20|2406 54.68 15.Slk Jayawardene D.P.|107 8750 53.35|2653 49.13|2469 46.58|3628 63.65 16.Win Lara B.C |131 11953 52.89|3884 54.70|3504 44.92|4565 59.29 17.Pak Javed Miandad |124 8832 52.57|3074 53.93|2817 52.17|2941 51.60 18.Ind Dravid R |134 10823 52.54|3772 54.67|4001 61.55|3050 42.36 19.Zim Flower A | 63 4794 51.55|1310 43.67|1488 46.50|1996 64.39 20.Ind Gavaskar S.M |125 10122 51.12|3951 53.39|3362 54.23|2809 45.31
The average of the averages figures indicates a clear move up of 5.7% from the first third to second third and a clear drop of 3.8% from the second to the third. Remember that these are on the grand average figure. Individual batsmen have clear move up and move down patterns.
Barrington, Hobbs, Hutton, Ponting (in a big way), Kallis (huge variations), Tendulkar, Dravid (again in a big way) are amongst the ones who have clearly identified low, up, low patterns.
Note the consistency across the complete career of Greg Chappell and Javed Miandad.
Sobers and Gavaskar are amongst those who have had great starts but fallen off drastically.
Bradman, Lara, Sangakkara, Mohammad Yousuf and Flower are those who have finished their careers very strongly.
To view the complete list, please click here.
Test Batsmen: By average sustained in 80+ innings
SNo.For Batsman Start Finish Inns No Runs Avge Ins Year Ins Year
Dravid's purple patch comes next, followed by the recent stretch of Yousuf and the mid-career brilliance of Tendulkar. Hutton (not including his 364) and Hayden (including his 380) complete the top-10.
It can be seen that the 80+ innings stretch averages of the last 15 batsmen in the table are within 6 runs.
To view the complete list, please click here.
Test Batsmen: By average sustained in exactly 80 innings
SNo.For Batsman Start Finish Inns No Runs Avge Ins Year Ins Year
This piece compares players with themselves, looking at how the numbers from the first half of their careers matches up with the second half
The usual criteria apply. This is just to ensure that the career is sufficiently long. I have taken 4000 runs and 45 Tests as the cut-off for batsmen and 150 wickets and 45 Tests as cut-off for bowlers. These two sets of twin conditions ensure that bowlers such as Barnes do not get into the picture. Most of the top keepers get in.
Only the batting average and bowling average are used for comparison. These two are the most trusted of all measures and will provide a very good platform for a clear understanding of a Test players' career.
SNo Cty Batsman |<----Career---->|<--1st Half->|<-2nd Half>| % Chg |Tests Runs Avge|Mt Runs Avge|Runs Avge| | | | | 1.Pak Younis Khan | 63 5260 50.10|32-2033 39.10|3227 60.89| 55.7% 2.Zim Flower A | 63 4794 51.55|32-2013 41.94|2781 61.80| 47.4% 3.Aus Redpath I.R | 66 4737 43.46|33-1813 35.55|2924 50.41| 41.8% 4.Nzl Wright J.G | 82 5334 37.83|41-2123 31.22|3211 43.99| 40.9% 5.Aus Chappell I.M | 75 5345 42.42|38-2219 35.22|3126 49.62| 40.9% ... 53.Eng Hobbs J.B | 61 5410 56.95|31-2733 56.94|2677 56.96| 0.0% ... 97.Aus Hayden M.L | 103 8626 50.74|52-4714 58.92|3912 43.47|-26.2% 98.Eng Smith R.A | 62 4236 43.67|31-2255 51.25|1981 37.38|-27.1% 99.Win Kallicharran A.I| 66 4399 44.43|33-2582 52.69|1817 36.34|-31.0% 100.Aus Gilchrist A.C | 96 5570 47.61|48-3073 59.10|2497 38.42|-35.0% 101.Aus Harvey R.N | 79 6149 48.42|40-3830 61.77|2319 35.68|-42.2%Younis Khan has achieved the highest jump from the first half to second half, an astounding 55.7%. His average has improved from 39.10 to 60.89. Note that in his last 31 Tests he has scored at higher than 100 runs per Test.
Andy Flower has improved from 41.94 to 61.80, an increase of 47.4%, that too playing in a weak team. Ian Redpath, John Wright and Ian Chappell have also finished their careers very strongly.
For consistency one need not look beyond Jack Hobbs. He has only a second decimal difference in his second half average to the first half. Steve Waugh and Andrew Strauss are close to achieving this perfection.
Gilchrist's huge fall, from 59.10 to 38.42 is understandable considering that he had an explosive start and fell off drastically towards the end. What is surprising is the fall of Neil Harvey, who dropped his average from 60+ to 35. This is quite inexplicable. He scored 15 of his 21 hundreds in the first half of his career. Gilchrist, on the other hand, scored 9 of his 17 hundreds in the first half of his career. However he was dismissed for many single digit scores, quite a few 0s included, during the second half.
Note how Hayden, R Smith and Kallicharan have also fallen off.
To view the complete list, please click here.
Test Bowlers: Analysing the two career halves
No Cty Batsman |<----Career---->|<-1st Half-->|<2nd Half>| % Chg |Tests Wkts Avge|Mt Wkts Avge|Wkts Avge| | | | | 1.Eng Laker J.C | 46 193 21.25|23- 78 29.95| 115 15.35| 48.8% 2.Eng Bedser A.V | 51 236 24.90|26- 100 33.87| 136 18.30| 46.0% 3.Pak Iqbal Qasim | 50 171 28.11|25- 65 35.78| 106 23.41| 34.6% 4.Nzl Hadlee R.J | 86 431 22.30|43- 192 26.17| 239 19.19| 26.7% 5.Nzl Morrison D.K | 48 160 34.68|24- 73 39.53| 87 30.61| 22.6% 6.Slk Muralitharan M | 129 783 22.22|65- 337 25.48| 446 19.76| 22.5% ... 38.Aus McKenzie G.D | 60 246 29.79|30- 126 29.81| 120 29.77| 0.1% ... 66.Win Gibbs L.R | 79 309 29.09|40- 176 24.56| 133 35.09|-42.9% 67.Pak Mushtaq Ahmed | 52 185 32.97|26- 105 27.51| 80 40.14|-45.9% 68.Win Hall W.W | 48 192 26.39|24- 119 22.15| 73 33.29|-50.3% 69.Eng Botham I.T | 102 383 28.40|51- 231 23.46| 152 35.91|-53.1% 70.Eng Lock G.A.R | 49 174 25.58|25- 104 20.13| 70 33.67|-67.2%Laker moved from an average spinner to Lohmannish figures in the second half, no doubt aided by the 19 for 90 at Manchester. That is nearly 50% improvement. Similar with Alec Bedser, who had totally different career halves. What about Richard Hadllee, with sub-20 average in the second half of his career. Again Muralitharan's last 64 Tests have had sub-20 average and an average of 7, yes, you read it correctly, 7 wickets per Test.
McKenzie was like Hobbs, averaging almost the same figure in his two halves. Saqlain Mushtaq and McDermott are in the middle group.
Look at the last five, especially Ian Botham. He was a shadow of himself, increasing his average by over 50%. Lock's figures are still more astounding. An average of 20.13 moving to 33.67 and below 3 wickets per Test. Possibly he played the supporting role to Laker quite often as happened at Manchester in 1956.
To view the complete list, please click here.
This blog is going nowhere with readers following a single agenda, whatever be the subject matter of the article. I have had complaints from serious readers that the purpose of the articles is lost. Hence a firm reminder that only relevant comments will be published. Henceforth I will not and readers should not forget that the purpose of the blog is to come out with new analytical efforts. I myself have been guilty of side-tracking into irrelevant and/or non-cricketing issues. Remind me, gently or otherwise, to remove the offending comment or response.
The readers wanted some fine tuning to be done to the Test batsmen peer analysis
>= 2000 Test runs. (Batpos no. 1 to 7)
To view the complete list, please click here.
2.Batsman Peer comparisons - Basic table
>= 2000 Test runs. (Batpos no. 1 to 6 & no. 7 avge gt 30.00)
Having done a peer comparison analysis of bowlers, it's now the turn of batsmen
The idea is to compare a player's performances with his peers. The comparison with one's own team is a limited step and is quite useful. However the real comparison is with all the peer players since it takes perfect care of the vexed question of a player playing in a very strong team. I had done this in a limited way for ODI Strike Rates. Now I have extended this to Test Players in a much more extended manner as explained below.
2. Sum the three main data elements, Innings, Not Outs, and Runs Scored for all the players for these matches. The Batting Average is used for comparison since this is the most accepted of all measures.
3. Subtract the player's own career figures from the total for the match subset and post these figures as a database segment. Even though the players' own numbers are quite low compared to the match subsets (Tendulkar 12773 out of 749558 runs) and the impact of this subtraction is minimal, it is done to get an exact peer segment.
4. For batsmen, first the base table is created. This table compares the batsman's bating average with the composite average of all batsmen during his playing span. This covers all batsmen since separate comparisons are done for specialized batting positions such as Opening, Middle order and Late order.
I have not done a separation by period. This is a pure peer comparison, cutting across all divisions.
First let us look at the basic Batsman table.
1. Batsman Peer comparisons - Basic table
>= 2000 Test runs
Based on the comments received, both in public and personal mails, I have made some tweaks to the Test Bowlers Analysis
Match performance ratings
1. Halve the balls bowled base points (a wicket equivalent for about 45 overs).
2. Introduce the bowler strike rate, in relation to team strike rate, as a new base measure, at a relatively lower weight.
3. Minor changes to the batsman dismissed base point calculation, to be based on recent form. This will lower the value of wickets of top batsmen while going through a poor patch and increase the weight of capturing in-form batsmen.
1. Have a cut-off of 200 wickets for the current era, reducing the number from 89 to 44. We have lost Shoaib Akhtar, Steyn, Alderman, Bishop et al. But it cannot be helped.
2. Increase the Wickets weight from 5 points to 7.5 points. Within this, do a 5% on either side (105% & 95%) valuation for away and home wickets.
3. Correspondingly reduce the Wickets per Innspell weight from 5 points to 2.5 points.
4. Remove the Performance Ratio measure, the last column in the table.
5. Instead introduce the Peer Comparison ratios. This time I have allotted an equal weight for strike Rate and accuracy.
6. Introduce a simple 5-Test slice based Consistency index using wickets captured as the indicator. Also include the % of wicket spells out of qualifying spells as a consistency measure.
Revised allocations of the Career points:
The points have gone up to 45 and there is a slight increase in the Match performance points because of changes in Base points calculation.
- Career wickets captured (7.5 points)
- Career wickets per innspell (2.5 points)
- Bowling Strike rate-BpW (9 points)
- Bowling accuracy-RpO (6 points)
- Consistency (4) points
- Average Quality of batsmen dismissed - based on CtD bat avge (5 points)
- Type of wickets captured - Top/Middle order/Late order (3 points)
- Peer ratio: Strike rate (4 points)
- Peer ratio: Accuracy (RpO) (4 points).
Let us look at the revised tables. I am not going to make too many comments and will let the readers draw their own conclusions. The overall feeling I get is that there are not that many changes indicating that the initial methodology itself was quite sound.
1. Current era (1970-2000): Table of top bowlers
No.Cty Bowler BT Total Match Wkt Bow Bow Wkt Wkt Cons Peer Peer Pts Perf Pts StRt Acc BtAvg Qlty Idx S/R RpO Max 85-90 40-45 10.0 9.0 6.0 5.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0
The best comparison of players is with all the peer players, since it takes perfect care of the vexed question of a player playing in a very strong team
The idea is to compare a player's performances with his peers. The comparisons with his own team is one limited step and is quite useful. However the real comparison is with all the peer players since it takes perfect care of the vexed question of a player playing in a very strong team. I had done this in a limited way for ODI strike rates. Now I have extended this to Test players in a much more extended manner as explained below.
My initial idea was to come out with the batting tables also in this article. However I have decided to that in a later article so that the analysis currently on hand, on Test bowlers, gets its due attention and does not get side-tracked.
1. For each player, I created a match subset of their career limits, in other words from their first to last Tests. For Muralitharan it is 1195(1992) to 1912 (2009), 717 Tests. For Tendulkar it is 1127(1989) to 1918(2009), a subset of 791 Tests, the longest span for any player.
2. For Bowling, sum the three main data elements, Balls Bowled, Runs Conceded, and Wickets Captured for all the players for these matches. These are quite high numbers.
3. For Batting, sum the three main data elements, Innings, Not Outs, Balls Faced (if available) and Runs Scored for all the players for these matches. This will be covered in depth in a later article.
4. Subtract the player's own career figures from the total for the match subset and post these figures as a database segment. Even though the players' own numbers are quite low compared to the match subsets (Muralitharan 770 out of 21281 wkts and Tendulkar 12773 out of 749558 runs) and the impact of this subtraction is minimal, it is done to get an exact peer segment.
I have not done a separation by bowler type nor by period. This is a pure peer comparison, cutting across all divisions. I wanted to see the place of a great spinner like Muralitharan across all bowlers, to understand his true value.
First let us look at the Bowler tables. There are three tables in all, one which compares the Bowling Average, the second, the Bowling Strike rate and the third, compares the RpO.
1. Bowler Peer comparisons - Bowling Average
SNo.Bowler CtyOwn <--Peer Bowlers--> Avge Runs Wkts Avge Ratio
A number of readers are bound to be quite happy at seeing Marshall at the top. He was 55% ahead of his peers, including his illustrious team-mates. Probably this was the X-factor which many readers found in Marshall. Next is the incomparable McGrath who was 53% ahead of his peers. No surprise there. However there is a big surprise at the next placed bowler, Muralitharan. His figure of 50% over his peers should, once and for all, put to rest any doubts about his greatness. Those who say that he has succeeded only because he was in a weak team should stop and look at this figure. His figure of 50% is on all types of bowlers, pace included.
The two great West Indian fast bowlers, Garner and Ambrose come in next, again a vindication of their position among their contemporaries. Wardle (a surprise), Hadlee, Steyn, Shaun Pollock (a recognition of this modern great) and O'Reilly complete the top-10. Maybe that is why O'Reilly was chosen ahead of Grimmett in the Cricinfo all-time Australian XI.
The top-10 consists of 7 fast bowlers and 3 spinners, one from each era. There are three great West Indian fast bowlers, 2 South African speedsters and two Australian bowlers in this group.
The table is propped up by two average modern spinners and Giffen from the pre-WW1 era.
To view the complete list, please click here.
2. Bowler Peer comparisons - Bowling Strike rate
SNo.Bowler CtyOwn <-Peer Bowlers--> S/R Overs Wkts S/R Ratio
After the comprehensive analysis on Test batsmen, it's the turn of the bowlers to be put under the scanner
I have learnt a lot through the Test Batsmen analysis. First and foremost is that doing a single comparison table over 134 years is not the correct method. Test cricket has changed probably 1080 degrees over the years and there cannot be a single yardstick for all the players. Hence I have separated the analysis into multiple periods.
Period Separation:
These periods have been identified with lot of thought and deliberation with inputs from a few interested readers. Many related factors have gone into this process. Separate tables will be prepared for different periods. In addition, I will show, in the follow-up article, two tables separating the bowlers by type of bowling. This will be only for information.
- The bowling era: 1877-1914 (134 Tests and 370 players)
- The batting era: 1920-1969 (535 Tests and 980 players)
- The balanced era: 1970-2009 (1251 Tests and 1220 players).
The first era is so different from the rest of the years that it is essential to separate it into a single one despite the paucity of Tests. Uncovered pitches, 3-day Test matches, 110+ overs bowled in a day, compulsory follow-ons, low average scores et al are some of the features.
The second era was where batting was king. However, the in-between wars period was lit up by the wonderful batting of Bradman, Hammond. Headley, McCabe et al and was the golden era of batting. Still the results were plentiful. What followed the WW-2 was unfortunate. These years were batting dominated. However the batting was defensive and the matches were driven by the desire not to lose, rather than to win. The new teams, India and Pakistan, the weaker New Zealand and the defensive strong teams contributed a lot to this situation. These 50 years form a separate era. There are lot of similarities within the two sub-periods in terms of numbers.
The third era is the most balanced era of all. This era saw great bowlers such as Lillee, Holding, Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Kapil Dev, Muralitharan, Warne, Kumble et al. It also saw the presence of great batsmen such as Richards, Greg Chappell, Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Miandad, Dravid, Gooch, Jayawardene et al. Thus there were great contests. As such this was a great balanced era and even though the number of Tests is quite high, this is a logical grouping.
As done for the Batting analysis, the analysis is done in two parts. The first is based on Match Performances and the second part is based on the Career achievements. Many people are under the misapprehension that Match Performance is based on team achievements. This is completely wrong. The Match Performance refers to the concerned bowlers' performances during the specific match and what happened in the match. The only team achievement considered is the result which, at the end of the day, is the most important aspect of any match.
A. Match Performances (Maximum 40 points)
The following factors are used to analyze the match performances of bowlers. The total points secured is divided by the number of innspells (my own term indicating a qualifying bowling stint, taking care to exclude bowling efforts such as 5-0-17-0 et al).
Base points
- Wickets captured
- Balls bowled - to recognize long spells
- Batsmen dismissed - based on his score at time of dismissal
Multiplicative factors
- Overall quality of batting team (primarily top-7 batsmen)
- Bowling accuracy (relative to the innings scoring rate)
- Match-related pitch characteristics
- An adjustment for pace bowlers bowling in the Asian subcontinent and spinners bowling outside
- Match situation
- Home/Away (incorporating relative team strengths)
- Result (incorporating relative team strengths)
- Series situation
B. Career Achievements (Maximum 40 points)
This is an equally important aspect of any such analysis. It also encompasses aspects of bowling which do not require consideration of the match conditions or situation. The only longevity measure is the "Career wickets captured" measure, carrying 5 points (6.2%). This will incorporate the following factors.
- Career wickets captured (5 points)
- Career wickets per innspell (5 points)
- Bowling Strike rate-BpW (10 points)
- Bowling accuracy-RpO (5 points)
- Average Quality of batsmen dismissed - based on CtD bat avge (5 points)
- Type of wickets captured - Top/Middle order/Late order (5 points)
- Performance ratio - % of wickets captured to % of balls bowled (5 points).
C. Match Performances(Maximum 40 points)
1.1. Wickets captured: Straightforward linear weight for wickets captured.
1.2. Balls bowled: This is to recognize the fact that a bowler might have bowled an innspell of 43-12-69-2 and provided great support to the main strike bowler(s). Around 25-over spell is considered as approximately equivalent to a wicket.
1.3. Batsmen dismissed: This is to take care of situations such as the Cardiff/Lord's Tests. The idea is to reward Anderson who dismissed Ponting at 0 as against Panesar who dismissed him at 150. Anderson gets almost complete credit while Panesar none. The importance of dismissing a top batsman at a low score cannot be over-emphasized. However it must be noted that in the Career Batsman quality measure, both Anderson and Panesar would get credit for 56.18.
2.1. Overall quality of batting team: This is based on the Career-todate batting averages of the first 7 batsmen and minimal weight to the late order batsmen.
2.2. Bowling accuracy: This is in relation to the bowling team's overall innings performance. three recent examples shown.
- Saf: 651 in 154.3 (Siddle 35-15-67-1)
- Nzl: 619 in 154 (Harbhajan 41-7-120-2)
- Ind: 379 in 92 (Franklin 14-4-38-1)
In each of these cases the bowler concerned has done very well as compared
to his team mates and will be credited with the appropriate multiplicative
factor, Siddle and Harbhajan more than Franklin because of the higher
proportion of overs delivered.
2.3. Match-related pitch characteristics: Based on Arjun's suggestion of the 10 best scores. I have done an analysis of many matches of different periods and this measure has come out very well. The highest value is 1319 in the (in)famous Slk-Ind test in which 6 centuries, including Jayasuriya's 340, were scored. The lowest was in an Ashes test during 1888 with a figure of 181, the four innings scores being 116, 53, 60 and 62 (???). The higher this value is, the more difficult the bowlers' task is and vice versa.
2.4. Location based adjustment: All pace bowlers bowling in the sub-continent get a lift up and all spinners bowling outside get a lift up. There is no negative valuation. These are based on actual summary calculations.
2.5. Match situation: The innings type. In the second innings, what score was being defended, in the third innings, what is the deficit/advantage and what was the attempted target score and in the fourth innings, what was the score being defended and what was the margin of win, if there was one.
2.6. Home/Away: No blind computation. This takes into account the relative strengths of the two teams. Weaker teams, whether playing home or away will get additional weight and vice versa.
2.7. Result: Here also the relative strengths are taken into account.
2.8. Series situation: Is it a dead rubber, is the series still in the balance, what is the series score at mid points et al.
D. Career Achievements (Maximum 40 points)
1. Career wickets captured (5 points): Only longevity based measure. 5 points for 1000 wickets.
2. Career wickets per innspell (5 points): Performance based measure.
3. Bowling Strike rate-BpW (10 points): This generally favours the fast bowlers. And that is the way it should be.
4. Bowling accuracy-RpO (5 points): This generally favours the spinners.
5. Average Quality of batsmen dismissed - based on CtD bat avge (5 points): Averaged over all the wickets captured.
6. Type of wickets captured - Top/Middle order/Late order (5 points): The Top/Middle order gets clubbed together and gets much higher weight than the low order and then the average determined.
7. Performance ratio - % of wickets captured to % of balls bowled (5 points). This is to reward the bowlers who have delivered maximum while bowling less. Generally favours the fast bowlers although readers would be surprised to see Stuart Macgill in the top-10.
Let us now look at the tables. The same criteria is used for all periods so the tables are comparable, while exercising a degree of caution. The bowler should have reached the mark of 100 career wickets. The tables are current upto and inclusive of match no. 1924 (Second Sri Lnka - Pakistan Test completed recently).
Before readers rush off with comments let me outline below in a simple manner all factors which have been taken care of. Please do not make redundant comments on these factors.
1. Bowler perf points in stronger bowling teams have been increased.
2. Bowler perf points in weaker bowling teams have been decreased.
3. Bowler perf points against stronger batting lineups have been increased.
4. Bowler perf points weaker batting lineups have been decreased.
5. Pace bowler perf points in subcontinent matches have been increased.
6. Spin bowler perf points in outside-sc matches have been increased.
7. Batsman quality is career-to-date and adjusted based on period.
8. Longevity gets a weight of 6.25% and performance measures 93.75%.
9. Effort put in by bowlers, even supportive, has been recognized.
1. Current era (1970-2000): Table of top bowlers
SNo. Cty Bowler BT Ratio Total Match Wkt Bow Bow Wkt Wkt Perf Pts Perf Pts StRt Acc Bat Qty Idx Max Wt-> 80.0 40.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
A variation on the ODI strike rate piece done last time, incorporating a couple of reader suggestions.
First a recap. The initial analysis compared the Batsman career strike rate with the rest of the team's strike rate, in the matches played by the batsman. The concerned table is given below.
Player career strike rates compared to own team strike rates
SNo Batsman Cty Mat Runs Balls S/R OBRuns OBBalls S/R BSRF
There were two excellent suggestions. The more far-reaching and top-drawer suggestion came from Abdulla who suggested that I compare the player strike rates with the strike rates applicable for all the players during the players' career. A simple suggestion. However this was also quite difficult to develop but has far-reaching implications in that it allows us to look at a players' career in true perspective, viz., in relation to his exact peers.
I have built a Player career span segment of the database. The great thing is that such comparisons can now be made not just on strike rates but on other relevant factors such as Batting and Bowling averages, Strike Rates, Bowling accuracy, Runs per match et al. My sincere thanks to Abdulla for opening the door on this fascinating treasure-trove.
In both cases I have taken care that the players' own performances and team extras are excluded from the Match and Player career span figures (for want of a better term. Readers are invited to offer their suggestions for this measure.)
Player career strike rates compared to Player career span strike rates
SNo Batsman Cty St/Rt <---Player Career Span---> Ratio Mats Runs Balls St/Rt
This is truly the measure of greatness. I would appreciate if readers understand that this only compares the Strike Rates and not bring in the Averages into the discussion. That will be the subject of another analysis.
Shahid Afridi truly stands tall in terms of his strike rate comparison with his peers. During his career of 276 matches, a total of 1727 matches were played. The average strike rate, sans Afridi, during these 1727 matches, is an impressive .746 and Afridi outscores his peers at an astounding 148.9%. An underrated player, even by his own countrymen at times, he stands supreme.
Kapil Dev outscored his peers by a wide margin of 42.1% indicating how far ahead he was, at least as far as strike rates are concerned. Then comes Sehwag who has an impressive 36.5% and the incomparable Richards who also has a very good lead over his peers of 35.6%. Ricardo Powell completes the top 5 clocking in at 31.6%.
The Top-10 is rounded by Gilchrist, Jayasuriya, Wasim Akram. Symonds and Zaheer Abbas. All great strikers of the ball. The surprise is the position of Zaheer Abbas. He scored at 22.9% over his peers, indicating his immense contributions during a low scoring period.
There is a significant change so far as Tendulkar is concerned. He outscored his team-mates by 13.9%. Hoever he has outscored his peers, over 431 matches in a span of 2231 matches by an impressive 17.1%.
Samuels and Miandad have almost perfectly matches their peer strike rates. The rear of the table is populated by players who were not known for their striking ability.
The second one, made by Karthik, suggested that I expanded the scope a little bit by comparing with the strike rates applicable for the rest of the match rather than the rest of the innings. This makes a lot of sense since it adjusts for widely varying performances in the same match. My thanks to Karthik.
Player career strike rates compared to Match strike rates
SNo Batsman Cty St/Rt <---Match figures---> Ratio Runs Balls St/Rt