November 6, 2009
What's a reasonable winning score in ODIs?
Posted by Ananth Narayanan -
1 day, 15 hours ago in ODIs
|
|
|
Sachin Tendulkar's outstanding 175 against Australia in Hyderabad meant another huge total was almost chased down
© Getty Images
|
|
I did an analysis on a winning target score in T20s and many subsequent matches showed how close the results of my analysis were. So I have embarked on doing a similar analysis for ODI matches. For ODIs there are a lot more matches available for analysis.
First some exclusions. For obvious reasons, I am going to exclude "Abandoned" matches, "No-result" matches (100 in all), matches which were decided on previous "revised score" rules (56 matches ), the more recent "Duckworth-Lewis" rules (101 matches) and a few incomplete innings. The reason is that the D/L and similar situations distort the scores quite a bit. If a team scores 300 and loses to another team which scores 150 in 20 overs, nothing can be inferred from the match. That leaves us 2659 matches for analysis.
I have taken the first innings scores, grouped these into run ranges and tabulated the results. Then I have derived some conclusions on winning target scores by inspecting and interpreting the results. Continue reading "What's a reasonable winning score in ODIs?"
Comments (18)
October 26, 2009
Analysing bowlers in Test wins
Posted by Ananth Narayanan -
1 week, 5 days ago in Tests - bowling
|
|
|
Muttiah Muralitharan has taken more than 40% of Sri Lanka's wickets in the Tests they've won
© AFP
|
| A few days back I posted an article on the runs scored by batsmen in winning cause. A number of comments were received which indicated that the batting averages in winning Tests is a very important indicator. I have done the work but will post the tables in a later article since I want to do justice to the bowlers. In fact the bowlers' analysis is as different from the batsmen analysis as chalk and cheese.
The reason is very simple and fundamental. Look at the following two Tests.
In 1932, Australia scored 153 runs in the match and WON.
South Africa:36 & 45.
Australia: 153.
In 1921, England scored 817 runs in the match and LOST.
Australia: 354 & 582.
England: 447 & 370.
The common thread running through these two extreme matches is that the winning team captured 20 wickets. This is the mandatory requirement of all wins, barring a few matches in which there might have been declarations or retired-hurt situations.
Continue reading "Analysing bowlers in Test wins"
Comments (16)
October 12, 2009
How far ahead is the top one - part II
Posted by Ananth Narayanan -
3 weeks, 5 days ago in Tests - bowling
|
|
|
Dale Steyn has the second-best strike rate among bowlers with at least 100 Test wickets
© AFP
|
| How far ahead is the top player in any list is a key point to answering the question of whether a high mark set by a player will be reached. I had earlier done a similar analysis for batting. Now I have taken a few Test bowling measures and created a table of the Top-100, subject to qualifying criteria, and assigned each position a percentage relative to the top position. A perusal of these tables will give an idea of the degree of permanence of the top places.
If an active player is at the top of an all-time list, he keeps on widening the gap on the second placed player, unless otherwise the top two or three are also active. This true of the aggregate type of measures. On the other hand in performance related measures, it does not matter since it is possible for later players to catch up with the particular measure. Continue reading "How far ahead is the top one - part II"
Comments (24)
October 1, 2009
In a winning cause
Posted by Ananth Narayanan -
on 10/01/2009 in Batting
|
|
|
Len Hutton scored more than 22% of England's runs in the games they won
© Getty Images
|
| I was influenced by a recent comment by a reader on runs scored in winning causes. Everyone and their neighbour's Labrador talk about centuries scored during the wins of teams completely forgetting that more than "centuries", the emphasis should be on "runs" scored. Why ignore a winning 98 or for that matter a winning 48.
Let me take two players not often discussed. The first is Ganguly. He, and most of the knowledgeable Indian supporters, would agree that his majestic unbeaten 98 while orchestrating a great chasing win over Sri Lanka during 2001 was a far greater innings, arguably his best, than many a big 100. Ganguly might have missed a personal landmark but he did not miss the bigger objective. Would anyone, including Ganguly, have been satisfied if Ganguly had scored 5 more runs but India 5 less.
Now for Jimmy Adams. Would anyone rate his 208 against New Zealand higher than his outstanding unbeaten 48 against Wasim/Waqar/Razzak/Saqlain taking his team to an improbable one-wicket win leading to a rare series win. Even though Adams' innings was less than half of Mark Waugh's match-winning of 116 against South Africa, it was no less important. Continue reading "In a winning cause"
Comments (32)
|
RSS Feed
