Anantha Narayanan
Hanging in there after a hundred
It is well known that some batsmen are better than others when it comes to going on to very big scores after getting a start
Charles Davis
25-Feb-2013
It is well known that some batsmen are better than others when it comes to going on to very big scores after getting a start. The differences between individuals can be surprising; for an extreme recent example look at two of today’s top opening batsmen, Matthew Hayden and Virender Sehwag. A comparison of the last 10 Tests centuries for each batsman shows a remarkable contrast.
| Hayden | Sehwag |
|---|---|
| 138 | 130 |
| 111 | 195 |
| 118 | 309* |
| 110 | 155 |
| 137 | 164 |
| 102 | 173 |
| 153 | 201 |
| 124 | 254 |
| 123 | 180 |
| 103 | 151 |
In this table, Sehwag has scored 912 runs after reaching 100, while Hayden has mustered only 219. In fact, Hayden has converted only one of his last 15 Tests centuries into a 150, whereas Sehwag has clocked up nine conversions in a row (a world record; not even Bradman managed this).
Full postBowler consistency analysis - a follow-up
My previous post on bowler consistency has attracted plenty of comments
Anantha Narayanan
25-Feb-2013
The post on "Bowler Consistency" received many comments, some silly, some sceptical, some dismissive, some appreciative and some happy at the thinking process it initiated. There were many relevant comments, which warrant a follow-up post.
First of all, an apology to the readers. I used "spell" when I really meant "innings spell". A spell is an uninterrupted stint of bowling. What I really meant was the bowling done during an innings. So I have coined an alternate term called "innspell" which is exactly what it means, the complete bowling effort during an innings, often consisting of multiple spells. Many thanks to the readers who took me to task on this issue.
Full postThe most consistent bowlers in Tests
How does one measure a Test bowler's consistency
Anantha Narayanan
25-Feb-2013
The batsmen tend to get analysed lot more and it is now the turn of Test bowlers. Two not-so-normal measures will be discussed in the next two posts.
Bowler consistency
How does one measure a Test bowler's consistency. Complex statistical measures will neither indicate the real consistency nor be understood by all. If I pepper this article with words such as Sigma, Skew, Mean deviation or Variance, I would have lost more than half the readers. What is needed is a cricketing definition of consistency and a simple easy-to-understand methodology which will be understood by all readers.
Full postExtreme batting - fastest and slowest innings in Tests
What are the fastest and slowest Test innings of all time
Charles Davis
25-Feb-2013
What are the fastest and slowest Test innings of all time?
A simple question like this is actually tricky, thanks to the extreme range of possible scores. Comparing innings large and small, based on scoring speed alone, is unsatisfactory. For instance, Adam Gilchrist’s 102 off 59 balls in 2006 was considerably faster that Nathan Astle’s 222 off 168 balls in 2002; both were freakish innings, but which was the more remarkable?
One way to answer this is by measuring how far each innings deviates from normal innings of similar size. To do this, we take every innings of a given size – in terms of runs scored – calculate the average (or mean) balls faced, and then calculate the standard deviation, which is a measure of the spread or variability of the data. We can then give the most exceptional innings a z-score (the number of standard deviations from the mean) which becomes a measure of how extraordinary the innings were.
Full postThe best batsmen at each position
My blog post from January 9 has received a fair number of comments
Anantha Narayanan
25-Feb-2013
My blog post from January 9 has received a fair number of comments. Some of the readers have raised relevant queries and points which deserve a response. Here is my attempt to answer them, and also check out the best batsmen at each position.
The opening-position conundrum
A couple of readers have suggested that the two openers be allotted a number other than 1.00. The two suggestions offered are 1.5 or 2.0 for both openers. Both suggestions have their merits. 1.5 is more correct since the total for the two batsmen comes to 3.0 which is the sum of 1 and 2. However it does not look good as 1.0 or 2.0 would do. Allotting 2.0 to both batsmen is probably the better solution since it allows one to maintain continuity in numbers from 2.0 to 11.0. The other major benefit is that when an opener bats at 3.0, the variance will be a more correct 1.0 than the somewhat bloated 2.0 as is currently the case. Hence I have decided to allot both openers 2.0 and re-do the tables.
Full postThe one-position batsmen, and the drifters
Where does a batsman bat in Tests
Anantha Narayanan
25-Feb-2013
Where does a batsman bat in Tests? Has he opened always? Has he been shunted around? Which batsmen have had the luxury of always (or almost) batting in the same position? Here is a new measure to explore these aspects of batting, which I had briefly mentioned in my previous post.
I've written a program to analyse the position at which every batsman has batted in his entire career, and average these. The positions of 1 and 2 are combined into a single position, 1, since it really does not matter who faces the first ball; other positions are numbered from 3 to 11. The batting position values are totalled and divided by the number of innings each batsman played, thus arriving at the Batting Position Index (BPI) for each player.
Full postThe Monopolists
Some of the more intriguing Test records cannot be found by looking at traditional scorecards
Charles Davis
25-Feb-2013
Some of the more intriguing Test records cannot be found by looking at traditional scorecards. Hat-tricks are a prime example, but there are endless possibilities. I recently came across a case, at The Oval in 1886, of WG Grace scoring 60 runs while his batting partner, W Scotton, remained scoreless, stuck on 21. I wondered, what is the greatest number of runs scored while one batsman remained scoreless? I knew of one example greater than Grace: in his legendary 232 at Trent Bridge in 1938, Stan McCabe scored the last 66 runs of the Australian innings, while batting with Chuck Fleetwood-Smith.
Are there any modern parallels? This is where Cricinfo’s ball-by-ball archive, with more than 400 Tests since 1999, comes in. Make a suitable database out this archive and it can be searched for feats like this.
It’s not as simple as it sounds, but some results are in. Bear in mind also that the archive was set up more as a detailed commentary than an “official” statistical source, and contains gaps. Anyway, here are some results for extreme domination of scoring.
Full postTackling not-outs, and answering reader queries
Readers have written in with replies and suggestions on batting averages, and the extended version
Anantha Narayanan
25-Feb-2013
First let me explain the reasons for undertaking this whole exercise of extended batting averages:
Let me start by replacing the first para of my article with the following, just to put to bed the Tendulkar v Lara arguments. Consider the following two outstanding batsmen, among the best of their generation.
| Batsman | Tests | Innings | Not-outs | Runs | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Viv Richards | 105 | 182 | 12 | 8540 | 50.24 |
| Jacques Kallis | 111 | 189 | 31 | 9197 | 58.31 |
The new, improved batting average
The batting average is a simple and fairly convenient way of putting a number to a player’s batting ability, but it doesn’t give the entire picture
Anantha Narayanan
25-Feb-2013
The batting average is a simple and convenient way of putting a number to a player’s ability with the bat, but often it doesn’t give the entire picture. One major problem with the conventional average – which is calculated by dividing the total number of runs scored by the number of completed innings – is the way it deals with not-outs. Consider the stats for two of the greatest batsmen in the modern era:
| Batsman | Tests | Innings | Not-outs | Runs | Average | Runs per Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brian Lara | 131 | 232 | 6 | 11,953 | 52.89 | 91.2 |
| Sachin Tendulkar | 141 | 228 | 24 | 11,207 | 54.94 | 79.5 |
Lara has scored nearly 750 more runs in ten fewer Tests than Tendulkar. His runs per Test is nearly 12 runs more than Tendulkar's. However his average is nearly two runs behind Tendulkar, primarily because of the number of not-outs that Tendulkar has had. It might be partly because of the way Lara played, almost always in an attacking mode. Possibly also because Tendulkar, with an average Batting Position Index, which is the average batting position at which a batsman has batted in, of 4.30 as against Lara's figure of 3.78, probably has a slightly higher chance of remaining not out.
Full postOf ducks and drakes
Ah, The Duck – nothing troubles the scorers more, despite what any commentator may tell you
Andrew Samson
25-Feb-2013
Ah, The Duck – nothing troubles the scorers more, despite what any commentator may tell you. Especially if it is a quick one and you are still entering all the details of the previous wicket. A duck is almost as much of a symbol of non-batsmanship as scoring a century is of batting ability.
In 1996, Danny Morrison passed the record for most ducks in Test cricket amid a blaze of publicity and memorabilia. Bhagwat Chandrasekhar had held the record with 23 at that stage. Morrison subsequently passed the baton (if you will excuse the truly abysmal pun) to Courtney Walsh, who still holds the record with 43. Muttiah Murailtharan has been dismissed first ball for a duck on no fewer than 14 occasions in Test cricket.
But, what about ducks in first-class cricket? Reg Perks, of Worcestershire and England (twice, in 1939), collected 156 ducks in his first-class career, which is a record. Perks was not the world’s worst batsman: he scored 8956 runs, including 14 fifties, at an average of 12.20 in 595 first-class matches.
Full postMost Read
Writers