Comparing Test bowlers to their peers
The best comparison of players is with all the peer players, since it takes perfect care of the vexed question of a player playing in a very strong team
Getty Images
The idea is to compare a player's performances with his peers. The comparisons with his own team is one limited step and is quite useful. However the real comparison is with all the peer players since it takes perfect care of the vexed question of a player playing in a very strong team. I had done this in a limited way for ODI strike rates. Now I have extended this to Test players in a much more extended manner as explained below.
My initial idea was to come out with the batting tables also in this article. However I have decided to that in a later article so that the analysis currently on hand, on Test bowlers, gets its due attention and does not get side-tracked.
1. For each player, I created a match subset of their career limits, in other words from their first to last Tests. For Muralitharan it is 1195(1992) to 1912 (2009), 717 Tests. For Tendulkar it is 1127(1989) to 1918(2009), a subset of 791 Tests, the longest span for any player.
2. For Bowling, sum the three main data elements, Balls Bowled, Runs Conceded, and Wickets Captured for all the players for these matches. These are quite high numbers.
3. For Batting, sum the three main data elements, Innings, Not Outs, Balls Faced (if available) and Runs Scored for all the players for these matches. This will be covered in depth in a later article.
4. Subtract the player's own career figures from the total for the match subset and post these figures as a database segment. Even though the players' own numbers are quite low compared to the match subsets (Muralitharan 770 out of 21281 wkts and Tendulkar 12773 out of 749558 runs) and the impact of this subtraction is minimal, it is done to get an exact peer segment.
I have not done a separation by bowler type nor by period. This is a pure peer comparison, cutting across all divisions. I wanted to see the place of a great spinner like Muralitharan across all bowlers, to understand his true value.
First let us look at the Bowler tables. There are three tables in all, one which compares the Bowling Average, the second, the Bowling Strike rate and the third, compares the RpO.
1. Bowler Peer comparisons - Bowling Average
SNo.Bowler CtyOwn <--Peer Bowlers--> Avge Runs Wkts Avge Ratio
A number of readers are bound to be quite happy at seeing Marshall at the top. He was 55% ahead of his peers, including his illustrious team-mates. Probably this was the X-factor which many readers found in Marshall. Next is the incomparable McGrath who was 53% ahead of his peers. No surprise there. However there is a big surprise at the next placed bowler, Muralitharan. His figure of 50% over his peers should, once and for all, put to rest any doubts about his greatness. Those who say that he has succeeded only because he was in a weak team should stop and look at this figure. His figure of 50% is on all types of bowlers, pace included.
The two great West Indian fast bowlers, Garner and Ambrose come in next, again a vindication of their position among their contemporaries. Wardle (a surprise), Hadlee, Steyn, Shaun Pollock (a recognition of this modern great) and O'Reilly complete the top-10. Maybe that is why O'Reilly was chosen ahead of Grimmett in the Cricinfo all-time Australian XI.
The top-10 consists of 7 fast bowlers and 3 spinners, one from each era. There are three great West Indian fast bowlers, 2 South African speedsters and two Australian bowlers in this group.
The table is propped up by two average modern spinners and Giffen from the pre-WW1 era.
To view the complete list, please click here.
2. Bowler Peer comparisons - Bowling Strike rate
SNo.Bowler CtyOwn <-Peer Bowlers--> S/R Overs Wkts S/R Ratio
The table is propped by three very average modern spinners.
To view the complete list, please click here.
3. Bowler Peer comparisons - Bowling RpO
SNo.Bowler CtyOwn <--Peer Bowlers--> RpO Overs Runs RpO Ratio
The last three is a motley collection of a West Indian great, West Indian journeyman and an outstanding but extravagant leg spinner.
To view the complete list, please click here.
Test Bowlers Analysis: Follow-up
Based on the comments received, both in public and personal mails, I have decided to make the following tweaks to the Test bowlers analysis. Interested readers may send in their comments at the earliest.
1. Have a cut-off of 200 wickets for the current era, reducing the number from 89 to 44. We will lose Shoaib Akhtar, Steyn, Alderman, Bishop et al. But it cannot be helped.
2. Increase the Wickets weight from 5 points to 7.5 points. Within this, do a 5% on either side (105% & 95%) valuation for Away and Home wickets.
3. Correspondingly reduce the Wickets per Innspell weight from 5 points to 2.5 points.
4. Remove the Performance Ratio measure, the last column in the table.
5. Instead introduce the Peer Comparison ratios. This time I have allotted an equal weight for Strike Rate and Accuracy (Yash will be happy to note).
6. Introduce a simple 5-Test slice based Consistency index using wickets captured as the indicator.
7. In the Match performance Ratings, halve the balls bowled base points (a wicket equivalent for about 45 overs).
8. In the Match performance Ratings, introduce the bowler strike rate, in relation to Team strike rate as a new base measure, at a relatively lower weight.
9. In the Match performance Ratings, minor changes to the batsman dismissed base point calculation, to be based on recent form. This will lower the value of wickets of top batsmen while going through a poor patch and increase the weight of capturing in-form batsman.
The revised allocations of the Career points are given below. The points have gone up to 45 and there is a slight increase in the Match performance points because of changes in Base points calculation.
- Career wickets captured (7.5 points)
- Career wickets per innspell (2.5 points)
- Bowling Strike rate-BpW (9 points)
- Bowling accuracy-RpO (6 points)
- Consistency (4) points
- Average Quality of batsmen dismissed - based on CtD bat avge (4 points)
- Type of wickets captured - Top/Middle order/Late order (4 points)
- Peer ratio: Strike rate (4 points)
- Peer ratio: Accuracy (RpO) (4 points).
My thanks to Arjun Hemnany, Shankar Krishnan, Kartik, Alex, Ed, Yash Rungta et al.
The Batting Peer tables will follow the Test Bowlers follow-up article.
Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems