Anantha Narayanan
All of us are familiar with the exploits of one batsman in a single innings
All of us are familiar with the exploits of one batsman in a single innings. This list is led by Charles Bannerman who scored an unbeaten 165 out of 245 in the first ever Test innings played. This value of 67.3% has remained unsurpassed during all these 130 years. Slater came close with 66.8% and Laxman's Sydney masterpiece clocked in at 64.0%. It is not an easy task to score over two-thirds of the team total as proved by the longevity of Bannerman's achievement.
I started thinking about this type of a dominance, but from a partnership point of view. I wondered about single dominating partnerships, and very little else. The possibilities are fascinating. A huge partnership and very little else means that there exist(s) one or more huge batting collapses.
If this partnership was for an early wicket, there had to be an immediate batting collapse afterwards. If this was for one of the middle wickets, there have been batting slumps either side of the partnership. However, if there was a big partnership for a late wicket such as ninth, the batting team was looking at a huge disaster and possibly recovered.
With this background, let us look at the table. The only criteria I have considered is that a team has to be all out. This is the only way to ensure that the stated objective is met correctly. Otherwise India's score of 410 for 1, consisting of an opening partnership of 410 will, incorrectly, qualify. Similarly Amla's and Kallis' partnership of 330 out of a South African score of 422 for 3 will, mistakenly, qualify. Just two examples to illustrate the idea.
The excellent partnership between Strauss and Collingwood at Chennai, although not enough to prevent a great win by India, had a high 68.8% share of the team score. However this could not be considered since Pietersen declared the England innings. On the other hand, the dominating partnership of Gambhir and Dravid at Mohali would have made the cut in the appropriate table with a % of team total figure of 69.3.
Table of high % partnerships
No Year Test I For Oth Ptshp (Wicket) Tot %
As the title implies, this is an analytical look at the 100 Tests played by Australia between January 1, 2000 and now
There are a lot of similarities between the Australian cricket team and Roger Federer. Both dominated their respective games to a level unseen until now. Both had their achilles heal in the Indian team and Nadal respectively. However their overpowering performances during the rest of the period kept them right on top for a long time. They might have been beaten by lesser teams/players once in a while. But that did not make their conquerors World no.1.
When Djokovic defeated Federer at Melbourne, he did not move to (or claim) the No.1 position. Similarly with other players. It took one player, Nadal, to produce consistent top-drawer performances over a long period, across all surfaces, which propelled him to the top, displacing Federer. He won the Monte Carlo Open, Italian Open, German Open, French Open, Wimbledon, Canada Master's and Olympics and only then moved to the top position.
Even then, Federer only moved to No.2 and he showed the fire in him winning the US Open just as Australia have bounced back after their loss to India.
If India or South Africa want to unseat Australia, it is not sufficient that they beat Australia once a while. They have to back this up with consistent wins across the globe and against each other, and that too away. Until then neither team can claim the No.1 spot. Any views to the contrary are hollow and empty words.
Let us look at some tables summarising these 100 matches. These are mostly team-centric analysis with very few individual player references. The format of the tables has been designed to show the years and total horizontally to improve readability.
Summary of series results.
Total Won by Won by Played Australia Other Team Draw All series 32 27 3 2 In Australia 17 15 - 2 Outside 15 12 3 -The only series lost by Australia were against India during 2001 (1-2), against England during 2005 (1-2) and the recent one against India (0-2). The only series drawn were, surprisingly, both at home. The first one against New Zealand during 2001 (0-0) and the one against India during 2003-04 (1-1).
The three-Test series played against Pakistan during 2002, at Sri Lanka and UAE, has been taken as an away series. The ICC Test series (one match) has also been included in this table.
Only India have a good record against Australia. Of the five series played between these two teams during this period, two have been won by Australia, two by India and one drawn.
Summary of match results
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total
This is a statistical summary of the 2784 matches which have been played over the past 36 years somewhat similar to the Test analysis which was done earlier
This is a statistical summary of the 2784 matches which have been played over the past 36 years, somewhat similar to the Test analysis I had done earlier. Certain changes have been done to the analysis to bring out the nuances of ODIs. As I have indicated in earlier posts, these factors will be incorporated into the ODI batting and ODI bowling analysis which will be done henceforth.
I wanted to incorporate the Duckworth/Lewis (or its equivalent) calculations in ODI matches into the article. However I feel that it warrants a separate article in the light of the farce during the fourth ODI between India and England in Cuttack.
The six periods have been constructed taking into account the number of matches. It is possible minor adjustments will bring major rule changes in sync with the periods. However that would leave the number of matches unbalanced.
1. Match analysis (Runs/Wkts per match, Rpo, Rpw)
Period Mats R/M W/M Rpo Rpw|Mats Balls Runs Wkts
After a couple of rather heavy Test articles, I have reverted to ODIs, that too bowling, an area which tends to be neglected
After a couple of rather heavy Test articles, I have reverted to ODIs, that too bowling, an area which tends to be neglected. Also a simpler post which would make for easier reading.
Let us compare two bowling innspells. (We again renew our acquaintance with the term "innspell" which indicates the complete bowling effort in a single innings by a bowler.)
G.A.Mcgrath 7.0-4-15-7 A.D.Mullally 8.0-1-18-4
In the first part we saw the way the numbers related to Matches, Innings, Results, Partnerships and Extras have changed over the 130 years of Test cricket
In the first part we saw the way the numbers related to Matches, Innings, Results, Partnerships and Extras have changed over the 130 years of Test cricket. In this second part we will cover Batting, Bowling, Keeping and Dismissals.
Let me emphasise that some of this information can be garnered using Cricinfo's excellent Statsguru. Mine will offer a different perspective and is a summarised analysis using my database.
Batting will be analysed by right- and left-hand batsmen. Bowling will be analysed by pace and spin bowling. All dismissals would be analysed. As far as the keepers are concerned, byes have already been analysed in Part 1. Here the two wicketkeeper dismissals would be covered.
1. Batting analysis 1 (average - left & right)
Period R-Avg L-Avg T-Avg
This is a major attempt to generate a set of measures for Test Cricket by period
Readers should also realize that after I thought of this complex topic, I have put in nearly a month's work, on and off. into preparing this complicated analysis. I would appreciate avoiding of a superficial read and flippant off-the-cuff comments.
The analysis covers various aspects of Test Cricket. Since the article has become too long, it has been split into two parts. The first part covers Matches, Innings, Results, Partnerships and Extras. The second part covers Batting, Bowling, Keeping and Dismissals.
1. 1877 - 1914 (Pre World war 1) 2. 1920 - 1939 (In between the two World Wars) 3. 1946 - 1959 (1940s & 1950s) 4. 1960 - 1969 (1960s) 5. 1970 - 1979 (1970s) 6. 1980 - 1989 (1980s) 7. 1990 - 1999 (1990s) 8. 2000 - 2008 (2000s)These are logical and reasonably evenly spaced periods. Anything more will result in too many periods with consequent difficulty in following the tables and anything less will telescope multiple differing periods into one and we will lose out in analysis.
Even the formatting of the article required a lot of thinking. I tried having the periods horizontally. It was difficult to read. There was also the need to present the core data such as runs, wickets, balls, wickets et al to the readers. So I adopted a dual presentation approach. In the main body of the article I show the calculated measures in a grouped form and the base core data in the supporting pages. That way all the information is shown and the main report is not cluttered. I have also avoided showing the variance of each period figure to the all-Test averages to avoid showing too many numbers. That will indeed be the key figure to make adjustments.
Let us get into the analysis results.
First the base Match analysis.
1. Match analysis 1 (Balls/Runs/Wkts per match)
Period Mats B/M R/M W/M
After a series of heavy articles involving parameters, weightings, extensive calculations, spirited arguments etc., I have considered a single topic this time - bowlers who have taken the highest percentage of wickets lbw, bowled and
I must thank David Barry for giving me the idea. In his article he has mentioned "Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, who often aimed for the pads or stumps". I myself have expressed similar views earlier. Then I started thinking about doing an article on similar lines. Let us see to what extent the Ws (and others) succeeded at taking care of the batsman by themselves. It is possible that this article has been done elsewhere but mine is a different interpretation and hopefully will bring in a fresh insight.
Let me add that individual dismissal type tables are available in Cricinfo using Statsguru. I have used my data to create composite tables and also sequence by % of total rather than by absolute numbers. I extended the scope of the analysis to bowlers who got wickets by bowling batsmen, getting them out leg-before, take return catches and the rare instances of hitting the wicket. These dismissals do not involve another player.
As usual I have to have a cut-off. I have selected 150 wickets, knowing fully well that there would be protests, since a reasonable number of wickets are
The toughest job in Test cricket is that of the wicketkeeper
A consolidated response to comments:
There were a number of useful responses. I must say that I seem to have emphasized the wrong points in my analysis. The readers' responses have clarified this. A good analyst has to react to the pulse of the readers. Based on these responses, I will do a follow-up piece, some time in the future, incorporating the following tweaks.
1.Take away both "batsman quality" parameters.
2.Strengthen the Byes measure, possibly incorporating outstanding individual innings performances. Also relate it to the team score.
3.As Daniel has suggested, possibly changing the inclusion criteria to 25 wicket-keeping tests rather than 100 dismissals.
4.Incorporate % of Team wickets measure, to take care of a.keeper playing in a weak team, b.playing surface (sub-continent), c.type of bowlers et al.
5.Look at the possible impact the bowler's quality has on the wicket-keeper performance.
6.Possibly consider dismissals per innings rather than per test.
I must thank John/Jeff/Kartik/David/Vidhya/Daniel/Marcus/Mparker et al for their useful comments.
Pl keep on sending your comments.
The toughest job in Test cricket is that of the wicketkeeper. One needs to concentrate right through the opposing team's innings and possibly open the batting or if lucky, occupy a late-order batting slot. For a few, there's the responsibility of captaincy as well. It is difficult to think of a more demanding position.
In this article I am going to look at Test wicketkeepers. The emphasis will be on their keeping abilities. I will also look at their batting abilities in a secondary manner and finally a composite look, not in an allrounder capacity but as a wicketkeeper-batsman.
The following factors are considered and are explained later.
- WK- Career dismissals.
- WK- Dismissals per match.
- WK- Stumpings effected per match.
- WK- Byes conceded per match.
- WK- Top-order dismissals per match.
- WK- Quality of batsmen dismissed.
- WK- Match performances - 5 dismissals and above
- BAT- Match performances - 100 runs and above
- BAT- Runs scored
- BAT- Batting Average
- BAT- % of Team Runs
The wicketkeeping measures have a weighting of 40 points and batting measures have a weighting of 20 points. Thus the wicketkeeping measures have a weighting twice that of the batting measures.
I have not included two measures normally associated with wicketkeepers. The first is "run-outs effected". Unfortunately this information is available, in a reliable form, only for the past 18-20 years or so and it would be unfair to the olden-day keepers if this is included. The other factor is "missed catches/stumpings". This is available, in a proprietary form (not available to anyone), for the past ten years or so and the same rationale applies.
The criteria for selecting the group of wicketkeepers is that they should have a minimum of 100 dismissals. That is all. There are no batting criteria. This is a fair enough criteria requiring a career of over 25 Tests. Thirty-two wicketkeepers qualify. Mahendra Singh Dhoni has to effect another 16 dismissals to qualify for this group.
A major adjustment has been done in case of players such as Alec Stewart, Kumar Sangakkara et al, who have played a number of matches as non-wicketkeepers. Only the matches they have played as wicketkeepers have been included. This has been done to be fair to them and others. It cuts both ways with someone like Sangakkara. He will benefit since his dismissals per match will become higher while his batting average will come down since his batting performance hit the stratosphere after he shed his keeping gloves. But this is a correct methodology and is fair to all.
The following parameters have been used with the allotted weightings.
WICKETKEEPING:
1. WK - Dismissals effected (10.0 points):
This list is led by Mark Boucher with 449 dismissals, followed by Adam Gilchrist with 416 dismissals.
2. WK - Dismissals effected per match (10.0 points):
This is the most important of the wicketkeeper measures. This single measure defines the contribution of the keeper to the team. This ranges from Gilchrist (4.33) to Syed Kirmani (2.25). Gilchrist is over 10% ahead of the next keeper, who, surprisingly, happens to be England's Geraint Jones. It is one of the great travesties of natural justice that Chris Read, one of the classiest of keepers, was kept out for a number of matches in favour of Jones who, it must be conceded, might even have challenged Gilchrist if he had not missed quite a few chances.
3. WK - Stumpings effected per match (2.0 points):
This looks at stumpings, an important wicketkeeping skill, as a per-match measure. This list is led by Bert Oldfield with 0.98 stumpings per match right up to Jeff Dujon, who had a stumping every 16 matches. This is understandable because of the absence of spinners for many years in the West Indian line-up.
4. WK - Top-order Dismissals effected per match (3.0 points):
These are the dismissals of batsmen Nos 1-6, irrespective of the team or the batsman's quality. This measure has been included since it is essential to capture top-order wickets irrespective of which team is the opponent. The range is from Gilchrist (2.88) to Moin Khan (1.9). There is no doubt that this is also a measure of the bowling quality. But one cannot deny the keepers the reward for quality work they put in. Nearly half of the top-order batsmen have been dismissed by Gilchrist.
5. WK - Byes conceded per match (5.0 points):
Byes are an important aspect of wicketkeeping and this is recognised as an independent measure. The range is from Dave Richardson (3.7) to Saleem Yousuf (10.7). To get these in perspective look at the following numbers. Richardson kept wicket in 70 innings. Out of these 70, in 36 innings (over 50%) he did not concede a bye while conceding 10 or more byes in only two innings. On the other hand, Saleem Yousuf kept wicket in 58 innings. Out of these 58, he had a clean slate in only 10 innings (below 20%) while conceding 10 or more byes in 11 innings.
6. WK - Quality of Batsmen dismissed (5.0 points):
This is done in a way different to the one implemented in the allrounder analysis. The keeper will get credit for the difference between the batsman's average and the score at which he was dismissed, subject to a minimum of 0.0. An example from the Bangalore Test will suffice.
Hayden c Dhoni b Zaheer Khan 0 Katich c Dhoni b Sharma 63 Clarke c Dhoni b Zaheer Khan 11 (Okay he was out lbw, but modified to demonstrate the concept.)
Dhoni will get a credit of 53.53 (the average of Hayden) for dismissing Hayden. He will get a credit of 0.0 for dismissing Katich, whose batting average is 39.47. And finally he will get a credit of 36.07 for dismissing Clarke at 11, who has a batting average of 47.07. Contrast this with the allrounder measure where the dismissed batsman's batting average was also added.
Initially I had included all batsmen. Subsequently I raised the ante and included only batsmen with an average of 20 and above. The reason is that dismissing a batsman with an average of 50 at 40 is a lot more valuable than dismissing a batsman with an average of 10 at 0. The better batsman is likely to score a lot more.
The compiled total is divided by the number of dismissals. The range is from Dujon (13.6) to Jack Russell (3.7).
7. WK - Individual match performances (5.0 points):
These are the matches in which the wicketkeeper has dismissed five batsmen or more. This represents a successful match for the keeper. Gilchrist leads with 29 such performances and, at the other end, Andy Flower, not so surprisingly, has not achieved this even once.
The increasing scope of available Test match data in recent years creates new opportunities for cricket statistics
The previous post on allrounders received a high number of quality responses
The final table has been slightly modified based on tweaks in the Performance parameter as suggested by Hamish and Kartik. Details at the end.
I had mentioned that I would do an in-depth article on selected all-rounders incorporating more measures, as suggested by readers. Some of the relevant points mentioned by readers are summarised below.
- Take care of an all-rounder being the first/second bowler (e-g., Imran/Hadlee) vs fourth/fifth bowler (e-g., Sobers/Kallis).
- Take care of quality of wickets captured.
- Take care of quality of bowling faced by the all-rounder in batting.
- Equalise Batting and Bowling to a greater extent.
- Take into account Bowling strike rates.
- Reduce the weight for longevity measures.
- Take into account Fielding data.
- Take into account Captaincy data.
I have considered all these requests and incorporated whatever is possible and quantifiable. The response to these points are given below in the same order.
- This has been taken care of in a round-about manner. I have determined the % of Balls bowled by the bowler to the Balls bowled by the team. This will clearly give an idea of the bowling importance of the bowler. In addition the % of wickets captured by the bowler to that captured by the team is also deternined to do a more informed determination of the bowler status.
- Has been done by assigning the dismissed batsman's batting average to each wicket captured by the player. Capturing the wicket of Tendulkar will add 54.23 to the kitty while dismissing Zaheer Khan will add only 11.77 to the sum. Fair enough.
- Has been done by assigning an opposite team's actual weighted bowling strength, based on balls bowled and bowling average, to each run scored by the player. Take three centuries scored by Kallis. The 115 against Zimbabwe will be weighted with a value of 46.47, the 105 against Pakistan will be weighted with a value of 35.40 and the 139 against Bangladesh will be weighted with 59.98. Cannot do more.
- Has been done in different ways.
- Has been done. The longevity weightings have been halved.
- Not done since the Bowling Strike rate is a constituent part of the Bowling Average. I am aware that separating the Bowling Accuracy and Bowling Strike Rate and doing a differential weighting of the two measures will change the dynamics of the calculations. However I see no reason for doing the same separately since the Bowling Average is a universally accepted figure encompassing both. If Sobers has higher bowling strike rate, he makes up for it partly with his accuracy and this is already reflected in his relatively high Bowling Average. Doing the Strike Rate in addition will penalize players doubly.
- Not done since an all-rounder analysis should take only Batting and Bowling. Fielding does not become part of a player's all-round abilities. If a fielder fields at first slip, he would get a number of catches. If he fields at long-on, he will get very few catches.
- Not done because a player's captaincy ability does not add to his all-round abilities. It is an opportunity given to him which he does very well (as Imran did) or poorly (as Botham did). However what about Hadlee who never captained New Zealand. It was not because he did not have captaincy skills, rather it was because NZ board did not want to overload him. He cannot be penalised for this. Similar situation exists with Kallis/Miller et al.
- 2500+ runs.
- 25.00+ Batting average.
- 100+ wickets.
- Bowling average less than 40.
No Player Runs Avge Wkts Avge
However since this list is primarily a post-WW2 list, a separate analysis is done for all the all-rounders who have played their games before 1948. This list is shown at the end.
The following parameters have been used with the weightings allotted.
1. BAT - Runs Scored (7.5 points):
The weighting has been reduced by 50% to 7.5 points. One point per 1500 runs and limited to 7.5 points.
2. BAT - Batting Average (10 points):
The range is from Sobers (57.78) to Hadlee (27.17). The point allocation ranges from 0.0 for Batting Average of 25.00 to 10.00 for Batting Average of 60.00.
3. BAT - Bowling Quality faced (10 points):
The range is from Botham (34.38), a surprise indeed, to Miller (43.63), indicating the average quality of bowlers during 40s-50s. Botham's number puts paid to the wrong presumption that he was a flat-track-bully and did not do well against good quality bowling.
The point allocation ranges from 0.0 for Bowling quality value of 50.00 to 10.00 for Bowling quality value of 30.0.
4. BAT - % of Team Runs scored (5 points):
The range is from Sobers (15.78%) to Pollock (7.68%), both understandable. The point allocation ranges from 0.0 for TRS % of 0.00 to 5.00 for TRS % of 16.0.
5. BOW - Wickets captured (7.5 points):
The weighting has been reduced by 50% to 7.5 points. One point per 60 wickets and limited to 7.5 points.
6. BOW - Bowling Average (10 points):
The range is from Hadlee (22.30) to, not surprisingly, Sobers (34.04). To a great extent Sobers has made up his poor strike rate with his accuracy. The point allocation ranges from 0.0 for Bowling Average of 40.00 to 10.00 for Bowling Average of 20.00.
7. BOW - Wickets Quality (5 points):
I have always felt that Flintoff consistently captiured top order wickets. This is more than borne by these numbers. The range is from Flintoff (34.85) to Cairns (29.29). Incidentally 84 of Flintoff's 206 wickets (over 40%) are of batsmen with Batting Averages exceeding 40.0.
The point allocation is from 0.0 for Wkt quality of 25.0 to 5.0 for Wkt quality of 35.0.
8. BOW - % of Team Balls (5 points):
As stated already this is a clear indication of the player's importance to the bowling attack. Kallis is clearly the lowest with a % of Team Balls bowled value of 15.22, less than a sixth, indicating that he was, at best, South Africa's fifth bowler. On the other hand, Imran Khan bowled 27.27% of his team balls making him to be the top bowler.
The range is from 0.0 for Team Balls % of 10.0 to 5.0 for Team Balls % of 30.0.
9. BOW - % of Team Wickets (5 points):
This is another indicator of the all-rounder's place in the bowling attack. The previous one indicates the effort put in. This indicates the results. Kallis is clearly the lowest with a % of Team wickets captured value of 16.59, again less than a sixth, indicating that he was, at best, South Africa's fifth bowler. On the other hand, Imran Khan has captured 37.07% of his team wickets making him to be the top bowler. It should be noted that the team wickets are accumulated only in matches where the all-rounder bowled. This is to take care of the 7 matches in which Imran played as a pure batsmen.
The range is from 0.0 for Team wickets % of 10.0 to 5.0 for Team wickets % of 40.0.
10. ARF - All Round performances in Tests (10 points):
This is a great measure of the individual match performances. I have changed the criteria to 100+ runs & 4+ wickets for P1 performances and 75+ runs & 3+ wickets for P2 performances. These are AND conditions and not OR conditions. Since completing the previous article I have realised that this is a true measure of the all-rounder's contributions in individual Test matches since he contributes heavily to the team performance by excelling in both batting and bowling.
0.5 points are alloted for each P1 performance and 0.25 points for each P2 performance.
Sobers is the undisputed leader in this category. His performances are listed below. This table will outline his greatness. In 93 Tests he has excelled with P1 level all-round performances in 11. He has done P1/P2 level performances in 24 Tests (more than 25%).
Sobers G.St.A P1 1960 0490 Eng Win (3+1) 4 wkts & 145 runs (145+ 0) P1 1960 0491 Eng Win (3+2) 5 wkts & 141 runs ( 92+ 49) P1 1962 0526 Ind Win (4+1) 5 wkts & 153 runs (153+ 0) P1 1962 0529 Win Ind (0+5) 5 wkts & 154 runs (104+ 50) P1 1966 0608 Win Eng (5+3) 8 wkts & 174 runs (174+ 0) P1 1966 0610 Ind Win (3+2) 5 wkts & 103 runs ( 50+ 53) P1 1968 0629 Eng Win (1+3) 4 wkts & 113 runs ( 0+113) P1 1968 0636 Win Eng (3+3) 6 wkts & 247 runs (152+ 95) P1 1969 0646 Aus Win (2+3) 5 wkts & 126 runs ( 13+113) P1 1971 0685 Win Ind (2+2) 4 wkts & 187 runs (178+ 9) P1 1972 0695 Win Nzl (4+0) 4 wkts & 177 runs ( 35+142)
11. ARF - Average Runs scored / Wickets captured per Test (5 points):
This rounds off the individual Test all-round performances. I total the Runs and 25 times the Wickets and divide the sum by the number of Tests played. This is a clear parameter of consistency and all-round delivery. This is slightly biased in favour of the bowling since an average of 100 runs per Test has been achieved only by one batsman while 4 wickets per Test by 48 bowlers.
The range is from Hadlee (161.6) to Greig (122.8).
The point allocation is from 0.0 for ARF value of 100 to 5.0 for ARF value of 160.0 and above.
Based on these calculations the top all-rounder list is given below.
No Player Bat Bow A/R Total
