A brief introduction into the methodology of Performance Analysis.
The Batting Performance Ratings analysis takes into account the Runs scored, Balls faced, Next highest score (if this is the highest score), % of Team score, Innings status at entry, Bowling quality, Pitch information, Team strengths, Target score in front, Match location, Result and Match importance. These parameters are given appropriate weights. The calculations are done in such a way that Rating points of 1000 would be allotted to a mind-blowing and match-winning score of 200 in 150 balls in a WC final.
The Bowling Performance Ratings analysis takes into account the Wickets captured, Quality of batsmen dismissed, Scores at which batsmen were dismissed, Bowling accuracy, Batting quality, Pitch information, Team strengths, Target being defended, Match location, Result and Match importance. The calculations are done in such a way that Rating points of 1000 would be allotted to a magnificent and match-winning analysis of 10-2-15-6 in a WC final.
The Player Performance Ratings analysis takes into account the Batting Rating points, Bowling Rating points and the Fielding Rating points, which is a combination of catches and stumpings. There are minimum criteria for batting and bowling stints to ensure that these are genuinely all-round performances.
The Team Performance Ratings analysis takes into account the Result, Margin of win, Resources utilized, Team strengths, Match location and Match importance. The calculations are done in such a way that Rating points of 1000 would be allotted to an overwhelming win by 150 runs or 8 wickets in a WC final.
Let us move on to the Performance Analysis tables for 1992.
|2||318||1992||750||MD Crowe||New Zealand||Pak||91||83|
|4||306||1992||714||MD Crowe||New Zealand||Aus||100*||134|
|8||294||1992||742||PV Simmons||West Indies||Slk||110||125|
|9||291||1992||719||KC Wessels||South Africa||Aus||81*||148|
|10||291||1992||734||MD Crowe||New Zealand||Win||81*||81|
The 1992 edition was not a great World Cup for individual performances. Rameez Raja's, competent at best, hundred tops the table. For Pakistan this was an away match. Also the dismissal of New Zealand for 166 implies a difficult pitch to bat on. And Raja's dominating batting, coupled with the fact that Pakistan were in trouble at 9 for 2.
Martin Crowe was the batsmen of the World Cup. It is nice to see three of his performances, including the beautiful 81, appear in this table. In two of the innings Crowe fell short of a hundred. But let us not forget that New Zealand played all its matches at home.
Nice to see some lesser known batsmen like Graeme Hick, David Boon and Robin Smith appear in this table. Imran Khan's patient 72, which steadied Pakistan in the final, also has found its place. Inzamam-ul-Haq's explosive 60 just misses the top-ten.
|1||568||1992||748||EA Brandes||Zimbabwe||Eng||10.0 - 4 - 21 - 4|
|2||558||1992||730||MW Pringle||South Africa||Win||8.0 - 4 - 11 - 4|
|3||458||1992||752||DR Pringle||England||Pak||10.0 - 2 - 22 - 3|
|4||352||1992||726||DR Pringle||England||Pak||8.2 - 5 - 8 - 3|
|5||343||1992||749||MR Whitney||Australia||Win||10.0 - 1 - 34 - 4|
|6||333||1992||747||Wasim Akram||Pakistan||Nzl||9.2 - 0 - 32 - 4|
|7||311||1992||736||CC Lewis||England||Slk||8.0 - 0 - 30 - 4|
|8||310||1992||752||Mushtaq Ahmed||Pakistan||Eng||10.0 - 1 - 41 - 3|
|9||298||1992||731||IT Botham||England||Aus||10.0 - 1 - 31 - 4|
|10||294||1992||714||GR Larsen||New Zealand||Aus||10.0 - 1 - 30 - 3|
Surprisingly, there was no five-wicket haul in the World Cup. There were a number of important four-wicket performances, however. Eddo Brandes' match-winning spell is correctly placed at the top. The former chicken farmer, with his four top-order wickets, was primarily responsible for Zimbabwe's upset win over England.
Then come a slew of Pringles. Meyrick Pringle's spell was known for his demolition of the West Indian top order. Derek Pringle was very difficult to get off and produced two high quality three wicket hauls. Two match-winning bowling efforts from the final find their place here. Wasim Akram's effort is well known, especially his return in the second half of the innings and the devastating spell of two key wickets in two balls. Mushtaq Ahmed's spell was equally important.
|2||404||1992||723||PN Kirsten||South Africa||Nzl||90||129||7.0-1-22-1|
|5||328||1992||727||A Ranatunga||Sri Lanka||Saf||64*||73||6.0-0-26-2|
|6||316||1992||744||AH Jones||New Zealand||Eng||78||113||9.0-0-42-2|
|7||302||1992||729||N Kapil Dev||India||Pak||35||26||10.0-0-30-2|
|9||266||1992||738||PN Kirsten||South Africa||Zim||62*||103||5.0-0-31-3|
Ian Botham's four middle-order wickets against Australia and his fifty in the opening position together constitute the best player performance in 1992. Botham opened in all the matches and performed reasonably well. Peter Kirsten's excellent all-round performance against Australia was in vain.
Wasim Akram's exploits with bat and ball decided the World Cup in Pakistan's favour. His explosive cameo propelled Pakistan to a reasonable 249. He and Inzamam compensated for the slow batting of Imran and Miandad. Then he removed Botham for 0 and coming back late in the innings took care of Allan Lamb and Chris Lewis in two balls.
Pakistan won the World Cup. However, they could not defeat India at the SCG, mainly due to Kapil Dev's all-round performance. An excellent cameo of 35 was followed by incisive and tight bowling.
|SNo||Rating Pts||Year||ODI#||Team||Own score||Vs||Other score|
|1||724||1992||719||South Africa||171 for 1 in 46.5||Aus||170 for 9 in 49.0|
|2||711||1992||731||England||173 for 2 in 40.5||Aus||171 for 10 in 49.0|
|3||707||1992||752||Pakistan||249 for 6 in 50.0||Eng||227 for 10 in 49.2|
|4||686||1992||730||South Africa||200 for 8 in 50.0||Win||136 for 10 in 38.4|
|5||672||1992||750||Pakistan||264 for 6 in 49.0||Nzl||262 for 7 in 50.0|
|6||661||1992||739||Pakistan||220 for 9 in 50.0||Aus||172 for 10 in 45.2|
|7||660||1992||747||Pakistan||167 for 3 in 44.4||Nzl||166 for 10 in 48.2|
|8||652||1992||721||England||160 for 4 in 39.5||Win||157 for 10 in 49.2|
|9||641||1992||748||Zimbabwe||134 for 10 in 46.1||Eng||125 for 10 in 49.1|
|10||638||1992||736||England||280 for 6 in 50.0||Slk||174 for 10 in 44.0|
South Australia's nine-wicket blitz of Australia was the most comprehensive result of the 1992 World Cup. That stands at the top. Australia could only score 170 and this was passed quite easily. A few days later an almost identical match saw Australia scoring only 171 runs and being passed with the loss of only two wickets. Rarely have there been two matches with almost identical results.
Then comes Pakistan's reasonably comfortable win over England in the final. The final margin of 212 runs out of a first innings total of 249 is quite significant. Three other Pakistan matches appear in the table. The interesting fact is that after an awful start of one win, one no-result and three losses, Pakistan won five straight matches and own the cup. Shades of Australia in 1999.
The 1992 World Cup almost certainly had the best World Cup format of all time. It was an all-play-all format with the top-four teams qualifying for the semi-finals. This format allowed teams to start poorly and then recover, as happened to Pakistan, the ultimate winner. In a way what happened in 1987 was repeated. New Zealand and Australia missed out and two teams from outside the region qualified for the final. Pakistan was not expected to win against New Zealand and then England. They defied all odds and won the World Cup, thanks to two important short knocks from the new kid on the block: the one and only Inzamam. Not to forget the important bursts of Wasim Akram.
The match of the 1992 World Cup was Australia's one run win over India: the second time in consecutive World Cups.
The innings of the event was Inzamam's in-the-zone innings of 60 in the semi-final against New Zealand. But for this innings the World Cup could very well have gone New Zealand way. Crowe's classic run-ball 81 against West Indies ranks a close second.
The bowling spell of the tournament was a toss up between two four-wicket spells: those bowled by Brandes and Meyrick Pringle. On balance I have selected Brandes' spell since that was for a weak team and was instrumental in engineering a huge upset. Since Pringle dismissed four top West Indian batsmen for 10 runs, this was a 51-49 decision.
Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems