Anantha Narayanan

The 2015 World Cup has been analysed at different levels by a number of excellent analysts. Many writers have penned tongue-in-cheek humorous articles. I decided that I will do my concluding piece on the World Cup in a manner somewhere in between: Lot of analysis, part anecdotal, part whimsical, and part Andy Zaltzman. Stay off the oft-presented tables but present meaningful facts through specific analysis. I am confident that you would not have seen over 90% of the facts presented here. I am also hopeful that you will get a lot more insights and that these numbers will enable you to get a better understanding on what transpired over the past six-weeks. The bottom line is to have fun. Trivia these might be, but I hope, meaningful trivia. These are presented in groups. I have also stayed away from tables. There are very few references to individual achievements, which get chronicled often.

1. Batting Averages - Teams

• The batting average is determined using the runs scored and wickets lost. South Africa had the highest Batting average. They scored 51.0 runs per wicket. India averaged 46.0 and Australia was next with an average of 42.1. This lends credence to the fact that it was Australian bowling that made the day(s) for them.
• It is not a surprise that Afghanistan had the lowest batting average, with 18.6 runs. England's travails in the World Cup are demonstrated by the fact that their average, at 29.5, was below that of Zimbabwe, Ireland and Bangladesh.

2. Batting Strike Rates - Teams

• South Africa scored at an extraordinary rate of 114.2 during the World Cup. Australia were just a fraction behind, at 113.8.
• Afghanistan scored at 66. This is 1983-esque. They did not have even one attacking batsman. On the other hand, Pakistan's strike rate was only 80.6, despite the attacking options available.

3. Batting Wkts per match - Teams

• India lost only 5.4 wickets per match. They won their matches quite comfortably with lots of resources to spare. South Africa lost 5.9 wickets per match. This is amazing considering they lost 20 wickets in two of the losing matches. We are already starting to get a handle on the inability of South Africa to progress further. It is their bowling that seems to have let them down. Let us look at this later.
• Scotland lost an average of 9.7 wickets per match. Almost a perfect 10.

4. Batting Boundary percentages - Teams

• This refers to the boundaries scored. These percentage values do not have a great spread. New Zealand scored 56.9% of their team runs in boundaries. This is as expected. Brendon McCullum at the top was scoring at will in boundaries. West Indies follow closely with 56.2%. However I must admit that these two teams benefited greatly by the two double-hundreds, with very high share in boundaries.
• It is extraordinary that Pakistan have the lowest boundary percentage. They scored only 41.2% of their team runs in boundaries. Afghanistan's figure is 44.3% and UAE's figure is 45.0%. How does this happen? Very conservative batting by the top order and a string of 20s by Shahid Afridi might be the reason.

5. Bowling Averages - Teams

• The bowling average is determined using the runs conceded and wickets captured. Now Australia make their presence felt. They have the best bowling average, an imposing value of 20.2. India's good bowling record is demonstrated by their low bowling average, which stands at 22.8. New Zealand and South Africa clock in below 25.
• Zimbabwe had the worst bowling figures. Their bowling average stands at a miserable 57.2, way above the other teams. Ireland's bowling weakness is shown up by their average of 52.0. No surprises that bowlers from Afghanistan won a lot of hearts, with a very creditable bowling average of 38.4.

6. Bowling Wkts per match - Teams

• Australia captured 79 wickets in eight matches, which works to an amazing average of 9.9 wickets per match. The wicket they did not capture was the tenth wicket of New Zealand. India are sitting pretty with 9.6 wickets per match. They missed the last three Australian wickets. South Africa also clocks in above 9.0.
• UAE managed to capture only 5.2 wickets per match. Scotland and Afghanistan had figures of 6.7 and 6.2 respectively: these being higher than England's rate.

7. Bowling Strike Rates - Teams

• How often did the teams capture a wicket? That is the question. Australia lead India and South Africa by a wide margin. They captured a wicket every 24.0 balls: which, incidentally, is Mitchell Starc's career strike rate. It is no wonder that they have cleaned up all teams, barring one.
• Zimbabwe continued to have its problems with capturing wickets. They needed 56.0 balls for every wicket. This means that they were unlikely to dismiss any team within the stipulated 50 overs. They would have needed a complete Test day for that.

8. Bowling RpO - Teams

• The transformation of Indian bowlers is emphasised by this measure. They conceded only 4.92 runs per over. They are the only team to have conceded less than 5 runs per over. Australia follows closely with 5.05 runs per over and South Africa follows next, with 5.11.
• Ireland's bowling problems are demonstrated with their RpO figure, which stands at 6.44. The loss of Trent Johnston and Boyd Rankin has hit them badly.

9. Bowling Boundary percentages - Teams

• This refers to the boundaries conceded. Australia had the lowest boundary percentage from the bowling perspective, with 44.7%. Surprisingly many of the unfancied teams are at sub-50% figures.
• Scotland conceded 54.7% in boundaries. They played four matches in New Zealand and two in Hobart: all small grounds. The surprise is New Zealand, which has conceded a huge 52% in boundaries: a testament to McCullum's attacking bowling/fielding strategy and the smaller grounds.

10. Differentials - Teams

• This is a measure of the difference in batting and bowling averages of the teams. South Africa's differential is 26.4, India's is 23.3 and Australia's is 21.93. Australia, however, leads in the RpO differential measure, with an imposing figure of 1.78. South Africa's figure is 1.73.
• Zimbabwe's awful bowling numbers ensure that they stand at the bottom, with a -27.81 differential. UAE prop up the RpO table with a differential of -1.68.

11. Wides/No-balls - Teams

• The prize for guessing the most disciplined team in the World Cup: a free pavilion ticket to the next T20 match between Papua New Guinea and Nepal, to be played at Port Moresby. You have to buy your own air tickets, though. You can also distribute the Man-of-the-Match award.
• Have you guessed it? I am sure you got it wrong. Well, Bangladesh was the most disciplined team in the World Cup. They bowled only 23 no-balls and four wides. This works to a mere 1.78% of the runs scored by the facing teams and an average of 4.5 Wd/Nb per match. This is extraordinary discipline. All credit to Heath Streak and Chandika Hathurasinghe. England, something to cheer for, follows next with 2.3% and 5.2. Australia and South Africa are in the middle, may be because their bowlers strove hard.
• Zimbabwe confirm that they have been the worst bowling team in the World Cup, with figures of 5.2% of runs scored and an average of 16 Nbs/Wds per match. West Indies are also quite poor, with figures of 4.5% and 12.1.

It is clear that the dominant bowling team has been Australia. They have been relentless and did not have any discernible weakness. They did not play a spinner to achieve a pseudo-balance - not required in Australia. Glenn Maxwell did enough as a sixth/seventh bowler, capturing six wickets in 38 overs. They bowled brilliantly during the late overs. Of course, what is there to say about Starc? This top-quality bowling, coupled with very good batting, meant that the other teams were chasing shadows.

Now I will look at the matches and try to identify outliers by teams and players.

12. 300+ scores - Matches

• A team can score 300 in all first innings. The chasing team can also score 300 only if the target is 300 or more. There was a total of 71 (48+23) possible innings in the World Cup. Out of these 71, 28 ended with scores of 300 or more. That makes it an unbelievable 39.4%. How does one digest this? We do not have to compare this with the olden days when 300s were scored a couple times a year. As recently as 2011, on the batsman-friendly subcontinental pitches, this figure stood at 25%. Starc, Trent Boult, Mohammed Shami notwithstanding, the endangered species called bowlers have to be protected and saved from extinction.
• There were 23 instances of first-innings scores of 300+. Out of these, in three matches these scores were successfully chased down (Ireland, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka). This represents a one-in-eight chance of a successful 300+ chase for this World Cup.
• There were seven knockout matches. When we add the scoreboard pressures, knockout blues etc, it is clear that there was very little chance of a team chasing down a 300+ score successfully in this phase. The New Zealand-South Africa match was an exception. But that match was lost by South Africa through a litany of fielding errors, very unlike South Africa.

13. First 10 overs - Matches

• This was a World Cup in which the teams tended to take it easy in the first ten overs. Everyone had heard that the last 15 overs were an unlimited buffet lunch, so why take chances? Especially if you did not have a gentleman going by the name McCullum. So this was a staid period. The average runs scored was only 48.4. The highest tally was New Zealand's 116 against England, while chasing 124. The sequence was 9 18 10 20 10 29 9 4 3 and 4. If McCullum had not been dismissed in the eighth over, the innings would not have reached the tenth over. The next best was New Zealand's 88 while chasing South Africa's tough total. West Indies, when they were chasing New Zealand's huge total of 393, compiled 80 runs.
• What are the chances of a favoured team scoring 14 runs in the first ten overs against a very poor bowling outfit? Only possible if the favoured team is the unpredictable Pakistan. The sequence: an incredible 1, 0, 2, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 0 and 2. That Pakistan won the match against Zimbabwe is another story. Scotland made 22 runs in the first ten overs against New Zealand and Afghanistan scored 24 in the match against Bangladesh.
• UAE, in their match against West Indies, lost five wickets in the first ten overs. This is the only instance in this World Cup of a team losing five wickets so early.

14. Last ten overs - Matches

• These are the free buffet overs. It came to a stage where if a team conceded fewer than 100 runs, they had achieved something. The average for the qualifying 31 first innings is an unbelievable 102.6. These are the innings that lasted the entire 50 overs.
• New Zealand, against West Indies in the quarter-final match, scored 153 runs. The last five overs yielded 84 runs. West Indies compiled 152 runs in their last ten overs against Zimbabwe. South Africa, in their match against West Indies, scored 150 runs. It is intriguing to note that West Indies have figured in all three matches. They were either getting hammered or sending the balls out of the park.

15. 5 over stretches - Matches

• In the five overs (46-50) South Africa scored 96 runs against Zimbabwe. The overs read thus: 19, 16 30, 12 and 19. Let us observe silence for a minute for Panyangara and company. Move forward a couple of weeks across the Tasman Sea. South Africa again, this time against West Indies. The tally: again 96 (11, 7, 34, 14 and 30). This time Jason Holder and his support bowlers deserve our bowed heads. In the New Zealand-West Indies quarter-final, which we have already seen, Martin Guptill and company scored 91 runs in the five overs from the 45th.
• Now we come to a tale from the Twilight Zone again. Bangladesh played New Zealand in Hamilton. The nightmare sequence starts in over No. 2. It goes like this: 0, 1, 0, 1, 0. Of course you do not believe me. But that is what happened. Bangladesh scored 2 runs in five overs. It does not matter who scored the two runs. Boult bowled three consecutive maidens. Three weeks earlier Pakistan scored three runs in the first five overs against West Indies. They also lost four wickets during this period. It was the turn of the West Indian batsmen a few days later. They scored four runs in the five overs starting with over No. 15.
• When Australia were defending the meagre total of 151 against New Zealand, New Zealand lost five wickets in the five-over stretch between 20 and 24: they slumped from 131 for 4 to 146 for 9. No other team lost five wickets in five overs.

16. Maiden overs - Matches

• In their match against UAE, West Indies bowled eight maiden overs. Most of the maiden overs were bowled by their second-string bowlers: Andre Russell and Marlon Samuels. New Zealand against Scotland, New Zealand against Afghanistan and South Africa against UAE bowled six maidens each. Let me remind readers that these are based on my tougher definition of a maiden: No run to accrue to a team.

17. High-scoring overs - Matches

• Australia had 19 overs in which they scored ten or more runs. This was in the match against Afghanistan. South Africa had 16 overs against West Indies in which they scored in excess of ten. Again, South Africa had 15 10-plus overs against Ireland. The overall average is 13.2 per match.
• Now we come to those monster overs in which 20 or more runs are scored. There were 35 such overs. West Indies had three such overs against Zimbabwe. As did South Africa against Ireland.
• South Africa scored 30 or more runs in an over three times. Once against Zimbabwe and twice against West Indies. The highest over tally was 34.
• I am getting tired of writing about these performances. Let me take some rest.

18. Innings progression - Matches

• Doubling the score at the 30-over mark has been the old adage. Even today it is true when applied across all 3646 ODI matches. However in this World Cup, there was a remarkable change. The doubling level was, on an average, over 10% later. The average doubling level for all qualifying innings was 33.3 overs. By qualifying innings I mean all first innings that reached 50 overs. There were 31 such instances. The latest level at which doubling was done was when West Indies doubled their 37.3 over score of 186 for 1 to 376 for 2. Just think about it. They scored as much in the last 25% of the innings as they scored in the first 75%. Their scoring rate in the last 12.3 overs was three times the scoring rate in the first 37.3 overs.
• An alternate way of looking at this: Where do teams finish based on their 25-over score. Well, South Africa finished at 364% of their 25-over score against West Indies. West Indies, against Zimbabwe, ended their innings at 348% of their 25-over score. South Africa, again, when playing against Zimbabwe, scored 332% of their halfway mark score.
• Awe is inspired, mind boggled, and sanity goes out of the window.

19. Boundary percentages - Matches

• When Australia chased Scotland's low total of 130 and the rain came, Australia realised that they had to complete their chase in a hurry. So they scored 18 fours and six sixes in their innings of 133. This tally of 108 represents 81.2% of their innings tally. West Indies, when they were faced with an impossible chase of 394 runs to win, went down in a blaze of glory. They dispatched the Kiwi bowlers for 23 fours and 16 sixes. This boundary accumulation of 188 represents a boundary percentage of 75.2 of their total of 250. A few days earlier, New Zealand reached the ropes 13 times and went over seven times. This tally of 94 represents the exact matching value of 75.2% of their final total of 125.
• In their innings of 133 against South Africa, Sri Lanka scored only nine fours. This represents 27.1% of the team total. There are a few other instances of boundary percentage values below 30. England, Pakistan and Afghanistan are the teams.

20. Team scoring rates - Matches

• New Zealand scored at a rate of 10.14 in their whirlwind win over England. However this was across 12 overs. Amongst innings that ran their full course, Australia's scoring rate of 8.34 was the highest. This was against Afghanistan.
• Afghanistan's scoring rate of 3.06 was the lowest in the World Cup. Amongst completed innings, Scotland's 4.10 against Afghanistan was the lowest. Readers will remember this match as one of the greatest of all World Cup matches.

21. Wides/No-balls - Matches

• West Indies conceded 22 runs through wides and no-balls in the match against India. This does not include runs scored off free-hits. Zimbabwe conceded 21 no-balls and wides against West Indies. Zimbabwe conceded 18 wides and no-balls against South Africa. Zimbabwe and West Indies were the least disciplined of the bowling attacks.
• UAE did not concede a single no-ball or wide in their match against India. It helped that the innings lasted under 20 overs. In fact no extra was conceded. Afghanistan conceded a single wide in the match against England. Again, the innings lasting just over 18 overs. However the most disciplined match performance was England's, conceding three wides in Australia's imposing total of 342. England also conceded only three wides in the Sri Lankan innings of 312.

22. Batsman scoring rates - Matches

• McCullum's strike rate of 309 against England was the highest by any batsman. He was going towards a 30-ball hundred when he was dismissed. AB de Villiers' innings of 162 in 66 balls had a strike rate of 246. To make a score of 150+ at such a rate was indeed memorable. Angelo Mathews' quick finishing innings of 51 in 21 balls had a strike rate of 243.
• Nawroz Mangal's 4 in 28 balls against England was the slowest innings in World Cups. It had a strike rate of 14.3. Among 50-plus innings, Samiullah Shenwari's 54 in 110 balls against New Zealand was the slowest: with a strike rate of 49.1.

23. Fielding achievements - Matches

• Sarfraz Ahmed, who should have played from the first match onwards, effected six wicketkeeper dismissals in the match against South Africa. All were catches. Umar Akmal caught five batsmen in the match against had Zimbabwe. Jos Buttler, Mushfiqur Rahim and MS Dhoni effected four dismissals each.
• Once Umar Akmal was relieved of his wicket-keeping duties, he was a free man. He took 4 catches, as a fielder, in the match against Ireland. de Villiers, Raina, Porterfield, MacLeod, Rossouw, du Plessis, Soumya Sircar and Finch caught three batsmen.

24. Boundary percentages - Individual innings

• McCullum's 77 against England contained eight fours and seven sixes. That makes it 74 runs and 96.1% of the runs scored in boundaries. Hopefully, by now, Steven Finn should have recovered. In the semi-final against the fancied South Africans, McCullum's 59 contained 56 runs in boundaries (eight fours and four sixes). This works out to 94.9%. Against Australia, McCullum was more circumspect. Only seven fours and three sixes, a mere 46 runs out of the 50 scored in boundaries. Against the backdrop of what happened afterwards, this innings must rank amongst the most valuable in the World Cup. The top three innings in this classification are McCullum's. If only he had seen through two to three overs of Starc at the MCG?
• If we consider only 50+ innings, Misbah-ul-Haq's 56 against South Africa had the lowest boundary percentage. Only four fours, which makes the ratio as 26.8%. But what does it matter? Pakistan won a famous victory, defending a low score of 222. So Misbah's innings was indeed very invaluable.

Bradman memorabilia

This article is a little bit different from the first article on the World Cup. It's less tongue-in-cheek and more serious analysis, but no huge tables. Everything is concise. For analysis purpose I have grouped the matches into four classifications: all ODI matches up to 3598 (just before the 2015 World Cup), all World Cup matches between 1975 and 2007, the 2011 World Cup, and the 2015 World Cup. The 2011 World Cup classification was an afterthought and allows us to see how the trends have moved over the past four years. The conclusions are inescapable. This World Cup can be termed the World Batting Cup - 2015. There are some new ideas in the article, such as the over in which the scores are doubled, the number of ten-run overs, a proper 300-run% determination, and so on.

1. Scoring rates

                   Overs    Runs   RpO
All ODIs upto WC: 318254 1513125  4.75
WCs 1975-2007   :  27616  124967  4.53
WC-2011 matches :   4237   21333  5.03
WC-2015 matches :   3121   17730  5.68

Let us start with something simple: the scoring rate. The scoring rate, which has been well below 5.0 in all the ODIs and WC matches up to 2007, jumped by about 10% to 5.03 in the 2011 World Cup. That was understandable. But there is another jump by over 10% in this World Cup. It is clear that this is a combination of the new rules, audacious fearless batting methods, and the changes in pitches in Australian and New Zealand. Is this what the spectators want to see? I am not certain.

2. Average first innings score

                   Inns    Runs  Score
All ODIs upto WC:  3598  820156   228
WCs 1975-2007   :   303   68987   228
WC-2011 matches :    49   11977   244
WC-2015 matches :    35   10002   286

The average first-innings score, which remained at 228 through all matches and the first nine World Cups, registered a slight increase to 244 in 2011. Now this average suddenly jumps to 282, a 15% increase. Same comments apply.

3. Average first innings score (teams lasting till the end)

                   Inns    Runs  Score
All ODIs upto WC:  2647  653900   247
WCs 1975-2007   :   231   57785   250
WC-2011 matches :    27    7770   288
WC-2015 matches :    26    8403   323

This is a variation of the average first innings, with the proviso that the team should have completed the innings: 60 or 55 or 50 overs. The average first-innings score, which remained at around 250 through all matches and the first-nine World Cups, registered a good increase to 288 in 2011. Now this average suddenly jumps to 322, a 10% increase. Imagine this: if the innings runs through its course, we can expect an average score well in excess of 300. Any comments are superfluous.

4. Avge Over at which the score was doubled (where data is available)

                  Inns  Over
All ODIs upto WC: 1266  29.5
WCs 1975-2007   :  101  29.5
WC-2011 matches :   27  31.0
WC-2015 matches :   26  33.2

This is a fascinating analysis. I must thank the New Zealand commentators for this. During a match someone said, "The doubling of scores has shifted later to even around the 35th over". He did not have any data to prove it. So I went to work and this table proves exactly that. The qualifying innings are all first innings that lasted until 50 overs: even if the last wicket fell off the last ball. It is obvious that this analysis can only be done for the later half of matches for which ball-by-ball data is available.

First, let me confirm that the old adage: "Doubling of scores at 30 overs" holds good across all ODI matches and the initial World Cups. It is almost exactly at 30 overs. The 2011 tournament saw a slight move up to 31.0 over. But 2015 has seen a significant jump to 33.4 overs. This is almost exactly the two-thirds stage. That means the score is doubled in half the number of overs. Frightening thought indeed for the bowlers.

In this World Cup, the latest stage at which the score was doubled was by South Africa, who doubled the score from 37.2 against Zimbabwe: the Miller-Duminy assault. South Africa had another doubling, from 36.3 overs against West Indies. The only instances of doubling from a point below 30 overs are India, from 28.3 against Pakistan and England, from 27.2 against Scotland. Scotland doubled the score from 25.0 overs against Afghanistan. But they were pulling back the situation from 132 for 6.

5. Avge runs scored in last 10 overs (where data is available)

                  Inns  Runs   Avge
All ODIs upto WC: 1266 93106   73.5
WCs 1975-2007   :  101  7163   70.9
WC-2011 matches :   27  2225   82.4
WC-2015 matches :   26  2690  103.5

We are beginning to see a clear pattern now. The numbers for all ODIs and the first nine World Cups are quite average. Then there is a 5-7% jump in 2011. And a 10-15% jump in 2015. The last ten overs run-accumulation follows a similar pattern. From around 70 through 82 in 2011 to a huge 104 in 2015. Do not forget that this is an average. The top batting teams like South Africa, New Zealand and Australia are likely to score around 130.

The maximum number of runs scored in the last ten overs is by West Indies, whose batsmen compiled 152 against Zimbabwe. South Africa scored 150 against West Indies. On the distaff side, Scotland scored only 55 runs in the last ten overs against Afghanistan.

6. Avge runs scored & wkts captured in first ten overs (where data is available)

                  Inns   Runs     Wkts
All ODIs upto WC: 3688   44.6 for 1.37
WCs 1975-2007   :  280   42.7 for 1.46
WC-2011 matches :   98   46.8 for 1.37
WC-2015 matches :   70   47.7 for 1.54

Now we come to something stable, for the first time in this analysis. The average number of runs scored and wickets lost in the first ten overs. This has remained almost static across all classifications. The value ranges between 43 and 47. That means, even in this World Cup, the teams play carefully at the beginning. All mayhem is in the last 20 overs. There is a slight increase but nothing significant.

In the first ten overs bowled in the World Cup, New Zealand compiled 77 runs for no loss against Sri Lanka. That tally remains the highest to date. Australia follow at some distance, with 63 for 1, against Afghanistan. Looking at the other side, Pakistan complied a measly 14 runs, yes, you read it correctly, 14 for 2, against Zimbabwe. Nasir Jamshed and Ahmed Shehzad scored a single run in 20 balls. It is a credit to the Pakistani bowlers that they won the match. Zimbabwe's opening bowlers are very difficult to get away. The next lowest tally is the redoubtable South Africa's 28 for 2 in their first match in the World Cup.

An interesting feature of Zimbabwe is that while they have conceded 14 and 28 in the first ten overs against two top teams, they have also conceded 152 and 146 runs in the last ten overs. I get the feeling that the twin brothers of Tinashe Panyangara and Tendai Chatara bowl in the last ten overs.

7. % of innings in which 300 or more runs were scored (where such is possible)

                  Inns >300I   %
All ODIs upto WC: 4007  482  12.0%
WCs 1975-2007   :  345   44  12.8%
WC-2011 matches :   62   16  25.8%
WC-2015 matches :   55   25  45.5%

This is a damning and deadly table. The qualifying innings are all first innings, in which it is possible to score 300 or more, and all second innings in which the target is 300 or more. The percentage of 300-plus scores has moved from 12% (once in 8 innings) through 25% in 2011 (once in 4 innings) to 45% (nearly every alternate innings). The score of 300 has been crossed 25 times in 35 matches. This is certainly not cricket as it should be played.

8. Overs in which ten or more runs were scored (where data is available)

                 Overs  Runs  Avge
All ODIs upto WC: 1844 16720   9.1
WCs 1975-2007   :  140  1148   8.2
WC-2011 matches :   49   450   9.2
WC-2015 matches :   35   476  13.6

This table is slightly different in that even 2011 conformed to the rest of the matches. In 9% of the overs, ten runs or more were scored. But in 2015 this figure sees a 50% jump and the figure is now 13.6%. That means once every seven overs.

9. Bowler strike rates

                    Balls  Wkts   BpW
All ODIs upto WC: 1909524 51059  37.4
WCs 1975-2007   :  165700  4253  39.0
WC-2011 matches :   25425   731  34.8
WC-2015 matches :   18731   543  34.5

This is another surprising table. For all the batting mayhem, the bowlers seem to be capturing wickets at the same frequency but conceding more runs. The bowling strike rate has improved during the last two World Cups to 34.6, a 15% improvement from the earlier values. But I must say that the 36 wickets captured at a strike rate of 19 balls per wicket in the two New Zealand matches against Scotland and Australia has contributed heavily to this reduction.

10. % of runs in boundaries (4s & 6s)

                   T-Runs B-Runs    %
All ODIs upto WC: 1513125 580406  38.4%
WCs 1975-2007   :  124967  48062  38.5%
WC-2011 matches :   21333   9156  42.9%
WC-2015 matches :   17730   8510  48.0%

12. Frequency of boundaries

                  T-Balls B-Balls  BpB
All ODIs upto WC: 1909524 136870  14.0
WCs 1975-2007   :  165700  11371  14.6
WC-2011 matches :   25425   2160  11.8
WC-2015 matches :   18731   1959   9.6

Finally we come to the analysis of boundaries. The percentage of boundary runs has moved from 38% through 42% to 48% in this World Cup. The frequency of boundaries has moved from once in 14 balls to once in nine-plus balls. That means two every three overs. When one realises that these two boundaries come to around nine runs, and add the singles, twos and extras, no wonder we are looking at an average scoring rate of 5.6.

13. % of maiden overs (the standard definition)

                   Overs   Mdns   %
All ODIs upto WC: 318254  19451  6.1%
WCs 1975-2007   :  27616   2179  7.9%
WC-2011 matches :   4237    206  4.9%
WC-2015 matches :   3121    126  4.0%

As expected the % of maiden overs bowled has come down from around 7% to 4% now. It is understandable since conceding a maiden nowadays is considered sacrilegious.

The only table I have got in this article is the table of expensive bowling spells in World Cups. These have to be of minimum five-overs duration. I have listed the top 21 entries and there are ten spells from the current World Cup. That means that nearly half of the most expensive World Cup spells have been bowled in the first 35 matches in this World Cup. The two most expensive spells in World Cup history have been bowled in this tournament, that too in the same match. Some situations need not be dwelt upon further. My heart goes out to the poor hapless bowlers.

I can say with certainty that this is the first batting World Cup ever. The trends were there in 2011, but now we see this concept in full bloom. It is unfortunate that even the bowler-commentators seem to find it acceptable that teams can score at will, at ten-plus runs an over, consistently. I only hope that we do not see a 350-plus score in the final by the first batting team. And the circle will be completed if this score is chased down. What needs to be done? I am summarising what I did a couple of years back in a blueprint document.

- Take away the free hit. How can anyone bowl a ball with 0% chance of getting a wicket?
- Allow two bowlers to bowl 12 overs each.
- Remove all Powerplays.
- Have no fielding restrictions of any sort after the first 15 overs.
(Only a stupid captain would keep eight fielders on the boundary. They would be comfortably milked for ten runs an over. Allow the fielding captain to keep a fielder at deep leg position and dare Glenn Maxwell to reverse-sweep the fast bowlers. If he succeeds, he deserves all the accolades. Currently one fielder there means a huge gap elsewhere.)

Bradman memorabilia

Enough analysis is being done on the World Cup. I myself am doing quite a bit of analysis and preparing tables by the dozen. Hence I decided to take a different approach during the World Cup. This will be a potpourri of different types of World Cup related happenings: minimally analytical, part left field, some whimsical, possibly sarcastic, anecdotal at times, irreverent often but certainly not too heavy. I hope the readers have a lot of fun while going through these.

300s galore
The first four matches of the World Cup produced an ODI symmetry never seen before. In each of these matches the first batting team scored 300 or more. Their bowlers then dismissed the other team for 200 plus. Each of these matches resulted in comfortable wins. This has never happened in ODIs before. During 2002, there were four consecutive 300-plus scores but the responses were on either side of 200. During 2014 there were five consecutive 300-plus scores but included a successful chase. The similarity in matches was such that the team rating points for these four matches were in a tight band between 574 and 595.

That is not all. The World Cup opener was preceded by the match between New Zealand and Pakistan in which New Zealand scored 369 and restricted Pakistan to 259. So that makes it five consecutive matches of 3xx-2xx scores. The team rating points for New Zealand in that match: 588. This still does not end. The fifth match of the World Cup between West Indies and Ireland produced a first innings score of 304, making it six consecutive scores of 300: never happened before and very little chance of this sequence repeating yourself. As I complete this article there is another 3xx-2xx score in the West Indies - Zimbabwe match.

The agony and ecstasy of Solomon Mire
Mire, the Zimbabwean allrounder, experienced it all against South Africa. He bowled an eminently forgettable over to David Miller late in the South African innings. The sequence "6 4 4 6 4 6". Almost perfect over: three fours and three sixes. Although Mr. Monk would have interchanged the first two deliveries, for symmetry's sake! But Mire had his "15 seconds" when he batted. He took 16 off Dale Steyn's over (2 6 0 0 4 4) and followed with a six off the first ball of the Morne Morkel over. That was 22 off seven balls off a fearsome fast bowling pair.

Last five overs blues for India
The last five overs of the Indian innings against Pakistan produced only 27 runs. Contrast this with South Africa's last five overs against Zimbabwe: an unbelievable 96 runs. Then when these two teams faced each other, India could score only 36 runs. But South Africa, well they barely reached the 40th over. So India had the last word (or two) in both the matches. The Indians are going to say that it really does not matter if they score at only run-a-ball in the last five overs as long as they keep on winning.

The O'Brien family contribution
There have been the Waughs. The Flowers. The Mohammed brothers, four in all, for Pakistan. But there has never before been a family like the O'Brien brothers. What they have done for Ireland is something phenomenal. First let me present some numbers.

- Ireland has played 90 matches, won 42 and tied 3. That is a 50% success ratio.
- Kevin O'Brien has played in 84 of these matches and been part of 42 of these successful matches.
- Niall O'Brien has played in 64 of these matches and been part of 27 of these successful matches.
- In 31 of these 45 matches, the O'Brien brothers, either or both, have contributed in some form or other. A cameo, a big score, a good spell or couple of catches behind the stumps.

Hats off to the O'Brien brothers.

The plucky Ireland team's exploits
In each of the past three World Cups Ireland has beaten at least one top team: Pakistan, England and West Indies. This is known to everyone. Two of these three wins have been magnificent chases of 300-plus totals. When you add their successful chase of the Netherlands total of 300-plus, it makes three such successful chases: All in World Cups. And only two other teams, Sri Lanka and England, have done this in World Cups. Another doffing of the hat for Ireland!

Ducks by the dozen
What is with Australia and New Zealand pitches? We have already seen so many 300s being scored. But looking at the other side, the number of golden ducks is mind-boggling. Let me chronicle these.

- Scotland's innings against New Zealand had four golden ducks: Calum MacLeod, Hamish Gardiner, Preston Mommsen and Iain Wardlaw. Majid Haq managed to play two balls before being dismissed.
- Shane Watson and Mitchell Johnson were dismissed for golden ducks against England.
- Stuart Broad did not get bat on ball in the only ball he faced in the same match. The ball, instead, hit the stumps.
- Lasith Malinga at least connected but was dismissed first ball for a zero.
- Darren Bravo was out for a diamond duck against Ireland.
- Kevin O'Brien went for a golden duck in the same match.
- Hamid Hassan, later to shake the Sri Lankan top order, went first ball for zero.
- Younis Khan played a single ball and was caught behind for a golden zero.
- Finally, to cap it all, Lahiru Thirimanne and Tillakaratne Dilshan both went for golden ducks, having played a combined tally of two balls. Only the second time this has happened in ODIs and the first time, in World Cups.

What is happening? That is a tally 14 golden ducks in 11 matches. And today, Dwayne Smith was there, within a ball of the golden duck.

Who wants a hat-trick?
Steven Finn captured three wickets off the last three balls in the 50th over of the Australian innings. Let us leave aside the fact that this was the most expensive spell containing a hat-trick and converted a miserable 9.3-0-71-2 to 10-0-71-5. This was, inarguably, the most worthless hat-trick in the history of ODI cricket. Chetan Sharma, Saqlain Mushtaq, Chaminda Vaas, Brett Lee, Lasith Malinga, Kemar Roach, Malinga again and Finn have performed hat-tricks in World Cups.

We can talk of bowling and batting performances till the cows come home. At the end, World Cups should be viewed for what they are: competition between the top teams of the world. The teams have to work together as units, achieving result percentages in the high 60s across matches, never giving up, players pulling more than their share of the weight when their team-mates are not able to, fighting to the end in losing matches, and so on. It is essential to look at the past in terms of how teams performed across the World Cups. It is also essential to look at what sort of form the teams are carrying to the World Cup. In this article I will be looking at the teams from all these angles.

Home advantage is quite significant in a bilateral series. India are never going to blank Sri Lanka out away nor be blanked out by England at home. However, in World Cups the home teams have not really enjoyed home advantage. Only two home teams have managed to reach the finals of the ten World Cups, and one of these was a win for the home team (India in 2011) and another for the away team (West Indies in 1979). The remaining eight finals have been contested by neutral teams. Out of 352 World Cup matches, only around 30%, 109 to be precise, can be classified as home-away matches. More than a third of these 109 matches have been won by "away" teams. The other 254 are "neutral" matches. Hence for these analyses I have only looked at results per se and not results based on location.

In the first table I will look at the performance of teams across all ten World Cups. This is ordered on the result percentage, determined on a 2-1-0 basis. Simple calculations but very effective. The only criterion is that a team should have played in a minimum of ten World Cup matches.

It is not a surprise that Australia top the table and have also played in the maximum number of matches. Their four World Cup wins mean that they won all those knockout matches and also went deep into the tournament in the other six events, barring two. Their result percentage of 73.7 is very good, since achieving a two-thirds score is very good. They have a near three-quarter result. An important fact is that Australia have lost only one in four matches across 40 years of competitive, often attritional cricket.

Since they missed the first three World Cups, South Africa have played only 47 matches. But their result percentage is very good - around the two-thirds mark. A loss in one out of three matches is not outstanding but very good. England and South Africa have not won the World Cup even once. However, their result percentage is quite good, at just over 60%. West Indies swept everything in front of them during the first three World Cups, barring the loss in the final and then had reasonable World Cups next four times around but have done very little in the last three tournaments.

Then come India. They have had particularly bad World Cups in 1975, 1979, 1999 and 2007. This clearly shows in the results, which could be better. They are just short of 60%. The two wins have certainly helped them. New Zealand, despite never reaching the final once, have always fought well and reached the later rounds almost always. They are a middling team, with 58%. They are just ahead of Pakistan, who have had one victorious run and good runs in many other World Cups.

During the first five World Cups, Sri Lanka did very little of note. Since then, they have done very well, with a win in 1996 and reaching the finals in the last two editions. Overall they are just short of 50%. In the last five World Cups, their result percentage is well in excess of 60. They are followed by the lower-tier teams, led by Bangladesh and Ireland. Most of Kenya's wins came in the 2003 World Cup, in which they reached the semi-final.

In this table I have looked at the average of Team performance points, which are determined using the type of win, margin of win and the resources still available. South Africa are at the top with an average of 59.7 points, which is the equivalent of a win by five wickets or 50 or more runs. This shows that South Africa have always had something in the tank. Australia follow close behind with 58.5 points. Again, a fair bit to spare. West Indies and England follow with an average either side of 55: equivalent of a win by 30 or more runs or three wickets.

New Zealand, India and Pakistan have average performance points just above 50. This is a result of their losses, as also the fact that their wins were probably not as comprehensive. The other teams have average values below 50 points.

I have also analysed both types of wins. If won by runs, the average run margins, and if won by wickets, the average balls left. This gives an idea of how comfortable the wins were. Unlike the average performance points, this ignores the losses. So it will be possible for teams to post good numbers. When South Africa won, they won very well. Their average run-win was by a huge 126 runs. This is helped by the fact that three of their wins were by over 200 runs. Australia's average run-win was less comprehensive: by 82 runs. India and New Zealand, won well when they won by runs, with similar averages. Sri Lanka's average was over 100 and they are second only to South Africa. This tells you that South Africa and Sri Lanka had very good bowling sides. England, Pakistan and West Indies post numbers around 70.

The number of balls still left in the match in case of wicket-wins is a good measure of the balls-resource situation. One important tweak has been done. A win with 100 balls left in a 50-over ODI match during 2007 is more significant than a win with 100 balls to spare in a 60-over balls match during 1975. Similarly a win with 35 balls left in a 42-over rain-affected ODI match is more significant than a win with 35 balls to spare in a 50-over match. Hence the balls-left figures have been normalised to a base of 300 balls. This is a logical and mandatory requirement for any such table.

Australia have been most comfortable in the wicket-win category with an average of 91 balls left: that is 30% of the total balls available. Sri Lanka follows with 81 balls. West Indies are close behind with 78 balls. The other teams are around 60. Overall the wicket-wins have been quite comfortable with an average of over 20% of the ball resources still available.

This is an analysis of the teams in key matches. How do I define key matches? Simple. All knockout matches and all Super Six matches. Makes eminent sense since the contest becomes tighter in Super Six matches and the knockout matches are win-or-quit encounters. I have decided to exclude the Super Eight matches in 2007 since that was a completely unsound and lengthy tournament. Having 16 teams and reducing them to eight was unnecessary. Also, there were 24 Super Eight matches. Too many when I have only 56 matches other than these. Lest anyone say I have done this because India and Pakistan were dumped out, let me point out that there have been other tournaments in which both teams have been knocked out in the early rounds. I do not want to dilute the concept of key matches.

This table is ordered on the number of key matches played. Australia lead this table with 20 matches. They have an excellent 82.5% result. Their only losses have been the 1975 final, the 1996 final and the 2011 quarter-final. The other four World Cups were won by them. These are phenomenal numbers, which the other teams should respect.

India have had fair results in these key matches but have also lost many of them. The most significant of these losses would probably be the two semi-final losses in 1987 and 1996, when they were favoured to win and were playing at home. The other losses were in the 2003 final and both their 1999 Super Sixes matches.

South Africa have also lost five games, but that is out of eight matches. One can only count wins and ties for South Africa. This explains why success has eluded them. New Zealand, Pakistan and England have had more losses than wins in these key matches. Sri Lanka have been better. They have reached three finals and won one.

West Indies have not made too many of these matches: nine in all. They lost to India in the 1983 final, South Africa in the 1996 quarter-final, and Pakistan in the 2011 quarter-final.

Here you see the real reason for Australian domination. Even when the competition toughens up they have played well, with an average of nearly 60 performance points. Their average run-win is by 57 runs and average number of balls left is a huge 96. Barring West Indies, the other teams have had close matches while winning when chasing. India and Sri Lanka have also done well. Barring Australia and India, the other teams have not played enough matches to draw any meaningful conclusions. Note how South Africa's stock drops, as also those of New Zealand and England.

We have seen how teams have fared in World Cups over 40 years, both across all matches and when the stakes were higher. I can hear a reader say, "Look here, there are two players, the UAE captain and vice-captain, who were born in 1975 when England and India faced up for the first ever World Cup match at Lord's. So what is the use of these nice tables? Say who is going to win this World Cup." She would be right. Now that we have got the history out of the way and established who did wonderfully well in the past, let us look at today. Who is going into the World Cup in good form? Who are in my shortlist? And who do I pick?

I have taken the period of about 14 months preceding the World Cup for consideration: in other words, matches from 1 January 2014.

Australia are going into the World Cup in excellent form. Their result percentage is 76. That is outstanding. One loss every six matches. They are also playing at home. They are going to be tough nuts to crack.

South Africa are right there at the top. Their result percentage is nearly 69, and a similar loss frequency to the Australians. New Zealand are behind the top two teams. But their recent form has been excellent and they are playing at home. Teams will ignore them at their own peril.

Then come Sri Lanka and India. Result percentage around 55. India's recent form has been appalling. But they swamped Sri Lanka at home. For Sri Lanka, it is the other way around. After the washout against India, they have been winning around half their matches. West Indies have been their usual inconsistent selves. However, the form of England and Pakistan should worry their supporters.

It is no wonder Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are on everybody's shortlist. They are also in mine, for the analytical reasons mentioned above. I also feel strongly that these three are the only teams that are capable of winning three consecutive matches on these bouncy pitches and huge grounds. The other teams could win a match, possibly two, but there is very little chance of winning three consecutive matches.

Who will win? I would put my shirt on South Africa. No real weakness and the burning desire to prove their sceptics, within and outside South Africa, wrong.

However, astute readers will have noticed one subtle change. Note the performance average. That figure is lower than the World Cup matches. Australia's average is around 53%. South Africa have maintained a figure around 57%. The other teams are around or below 50%. That shows that the matches are won by narrower margins by these top teams.

Bradman memorabilia

High Score Index (HSI) is a measure to determine the top batting performances. An article on this was published a few months back. That article covered all ODIs. Now I will look at the World Cup batting performances from the HSI point of view. I have also strengthened the HSI with strike-rate values, which are very relevant in ODI innings. In addition I will introduce a new concept to measure the top bowling performances, called ISV (InnSpell Value).

Let me first explain ISV since it's is a new measure.

What are the main objectives of an ODI bowler? He has to take wickets. If the wickets are those of top-order batsmen, that's great. If he can dismiss top-order batsmen for low scores, that's wonderful. Finally, he has to bowl economically, both in an absolute manner and in the context of the innings. The ISV is a composite of these sub-measures. Without using context, these sub-measures define, almost completely, how well he has bowled. Let us see how it is determined.

I credit the bowler with the RpI of the batsman he dismissed. This is the base value, irrespective of when the batsman was dismissed. Whether AB de Villiers is dismissed in the fifth over or the 47th, the bowler has done his team a huge favour. Now I come to the second and variable part of the wicket. If de Villiers is dismissed for 5, the bowler has done a great favour to his team. If he dismisses him at 145, nothing.

So this variable component is applicable only when the batsman is dismissed at a score below his RpI and is the difference between the batsman's score and RpI. If a bowler dismisses de Villiers for 9, he gets 78.72 points (43.36+34.36) where 34.36 is arrived at by subtracting 9 from 43.36 (43.36-9 = 34.36). If a bowler dismisses de Villiers for 37, he gets 49.72 points [43.36+6.36 (43.36-37)]. If a bowler dismisses de Villiers for 87, he only gets 43.36 points. The second part of this calculation is applicable only if the RpI of the batsman is greater than 20. Logical, since I do not want to give the bowler a credit of 1.45 when he dismisses James Anderson for 2 or 2.06 for dismissing Ashish Nehra at 1!

Now we come to the bowling accuracy. This is done in two stages. Let us say that a bowler has an innspell of 10-1-43-2. The RpO, 4.3, is an absolute value and the bowler is credited with certain number of points. However, if this bowling spell is part of an innings in which the rest of the team bowled at 5.43 then he gets substantial additional credit. On the other hand, if this bowling spell is part of an innings in which the rest of the team bowled at 2.72, he gets very little additional credit. In other words, some context, whatever can be derived from the scorecard, is used.

These points are normalised to reflect the actual performance. The ISV values are pegged at a slightly higher level than HSI and an ISV value greater than 2.0 reflects a good bowling spell. The average ISV is higher than the average HSI value since there are far fewer bowling spells. This does not matter since these are derived from two totally different processes. These are apples and burgers and cannot really be compared.

Let us now look at the top World Cup innings by ISV.

Gary Gilmour dismissed the top six batsmen for 2, 6, 8, 7, 4 and 0. He had an economy rate of 1.167. What more do we want? His ISV is 5.177, the only bowling performance above 5.0, which is almost the maximum any bowling performance could reach.

Andy Bichel removed five top-order batsmen for 30, 2, 1, 46, 10 and 45. So he did not score too heavily on the wicket-quality front. But where he scored was that the rest of the team bowled at an RpO of 4.5 while his RpO was 2.0. Hence he comes quite close to Gilmour. And the additional seventh wicket also helps.

Shane Bond dismissed the top four Australian batsmen for 18, 1, 6 and 31. He bowled at 2.3 as compared to his team's 5.0. So his ISV is an excellent 4.831. It is another thing that New Zealand lost the match. That result, however, does not affect Bond's high ISV.

Since the next two months will be dedicated to the World Cup (and the ODI format), I wanted to round off with a nice Test piece. I had promised to do an article on Milind's graphic interpretation of innings status with special reference to fourth-innings chases. But the work required is quite exhaustive and I want to do proper justice to that fascinating analysis. I did not want to rush that. So I used the feedback from readers on the article on fourth-innings chases and moved into a specific area. Let me explain.

"Going down to the wire" is a favourite pronouncement by the Indian team director. "Decided on the last ball" is another favourite expression of many commentators. I have taken these words literally. I have looked for matches and situations carefully and selected Tests that really came down to the last ball. In other words, if the last ball played had a different result, the result would have been different. We will learn as we move on.

First, let me look at matches in which three results were possible: One team was safe from defeat.