Garry Sobers: a champion with both bat and ball © Getty Images

Possibly the best responses in the first 12 hours itself.

Based on these responses I have decided that my follow-up post will be to do a far more rigorous and in-depth analysis of only the very best 10 or so all-rounders, excluding the also-rans like Vettori/Vaas/Hooper/Shastri et al. Then I can be very strict and demanding in my parameters since I will be looking at the best. There is no need to worry about very low batting or bowling averages of these pretenders, upsetting the balance of algorithms.
Many thanks.

Who is a Test all-rounder? There prevails a peculiar idea of all-rounders. A bowler who can bat a bit (Abid Ali) or a batsmen who can turn his arm a bit (Sehwag) or a bowler who chances his way to a hundred (Agarkar), at various times have been dubbed as all-rounders.

That is a very low-level expectation of an all-rounder. Let us raise the bar substantially. An all-rounder should be capable of winning matches consistently with his batting or bowling. Since this is a subjective statement, let us lay down some rules to be used as the basis for our analysis.

He should have scored a minimum of 2000 Test runs at an average of 20.00 or above. The limit of 20.00 is necessary to exclude long-career bowlers such as Warne and Kumble getting into the All-rounders list. Much as I admire their batting skills I am not ready to accept them as all-rounders. He should have taken a minimum of 100 Test wickets. There is no need to have a limit of average since the all-rounder with the worst bowling record among this lot, Carl Hooper, with a bowling average of 49.43 is still considered as a genuine all-rounder. If I incorporate a cut-off limit of 40.00 for bowling average, Ravi Shastri and Hooper go out.

The rationale behind these two cut-off numbers is that, on an average, it takes 25-30 Tests to score 2000 runs and take 100 wickets. So we are looking at players who have played these many Tests at the minimum. 21 players qualify under these criteria. Wally Hammond misses out based on this citeria. Jayasuriya just misses out by two wickets. Steve Waugh also misses out by a few wickets.

There is a piquant situation what with Vettori, Vaas and Akram vaulting over the bar meant for all-rounders. Well, we cannot question the numbers. Vettori has a higher batting average than Craig Spearman while Vaas and Akram have acceptable 23+ and 22+ batting averages.

How do we analyse all-rounder performances? Once we set the minimum criteria and select the players it becomes easy to classify them. This time I have anticipated readers' comments and got the analysis done under the following three classifications. Finally I have a composite Index determination process based on these three classifications.

1. Performance based
2. Longevity based
3. Individual match performances.

1. Career Performance based:

The simplest and a very effective method of evaluating player performances is by measuring their averages. The batting average has to be as high as possible and the bowling average has to be as low as possible. So we subtract the bowling average from the batting average and arrive at, what we call, an All-rounder Index 1. The higher this index is, the more effective the all-rounder is. Let us now see the complete table, on this criteria.

No  Player         LBt LBw Ctry BatAvg Bow  BowAvg  ARIdx1

 1. Kallis J.H              Saf  55.46 RFM  31.23    24.23
 2. Sobers G.St.A   ~   ~   Win  57.78 LM   34.04    23.75
 3. Imran Khan              Pak  37.69 RF   22.81    14.88
 4. Miller K.R              Aus  36.97 RF   22.98    14.00
 5. Pollock S.M             Saf  32.32 RFM  23.12     9.20
 6. Goddard T.L     ~   ~   Saf  34.47 LFM  26.23     8.24
 7. Greig A.W               Eng  40.44 RFM  32.21     8.23
 8. Botham I.T              Eng  33.55 RFM  28.40     5.15
 9. Hadlee R.J      ~       Nzl  27.17 RFM  22.30     4.87
10. Cairns C.L              Nzl  33.54 RFM  29.40     4.13
11. Rhodes W            ~   Eng  30.19 LSP  26.97     3.23
12. Kapil Dev N             Ind  31.05 RFM  29.65     1.41
13. Bailey T.E              Eng  29.74 RFM  29.21     0.53
14. Flintoff A              Eng  32.35 RFM  32.21     0.14
15. Mankad M.H          ~   Ind  31.48 LSP  32.32    -0.84
16. Wasim Akram     ~   ~   Pak  22.64 LFM  23.62    -0.98
17. Benaud R                Aus  24.46 RLB  27.03    -2.58
18. Shastri R.J         ~   Ind  35.79 LSP  40.96    -5.17
19. Vaas WPUJC      ~   ~   Slk  23.97 LFM  29.31    -5.35
20. Vettori D.L     ~   ~   Nzl  26.65 LSP  34.44    -7.79
21. Hooper C.L              Win  36.47 ROB  49.43   -12.96
Note: ~ indicates Left handed batsman/bowler.

At the other end of the table, the spinning all-rounders occupy the low positions, led by Hooper who has a difference of nearly -13.

As an alternative, we could divide the Batting Average by the Batting Average and arrive at, what we call, an All-rounder Index. The higher this index is, the more effective the all-rounder is. This table is almost similar to the first table and is not shown.

2. Longevity based:

As a second alternative, we normalise all performances to a common base, say, Runs. Using a commonly accepted norm of a wicket as equivalent to 20 runs, we derive a table of Total Runs scored + Runs derived. Then we rank these players.

No  Player         LBt LBw Ctry   Runs  Bow  Wkts ARIdx2

 1. Kallis J.H              Saf   9761  RFM  240   14561
 2. Kapil Dev N             Ind   5248  RFM  434   13928
 3. Botham I.T              Eng   5200  RFM  383   12860
 4. Sobers G.St.A   ~   ~   Win   8032  LM   235   12732
 5. Pollock S.M             Saf   3781  RFM  421   12201
 6. Hadlee R.J      ~       Nzl   3124  RFM  431   11744
 7. Wasim Akram     ~   ~   Pak   2898  LFM  414   11178
 8. Imran Khan              Pak   3807  RF   362   11047
 9. Vaas WPUJC      ~   ~   Slk   2996  LFM  348    9956
10. Hooper C.L              Win   5762  ROB  114    8042
11. Vettori D.L     ~   ~   Nzl   2745  LSP  257    7885
12. Cairns C.L              Nzl   3320  RFM  218    7680
13. Flintoff A              Eng   3494  RFM  206    7614
14. Benaud R                Aus   2201  RLB  248    7161
15. Shastri R.J         ~   Ind   3830  LSP  151    6850
16. Greig A.W               Eng   3599  RFM  141    6419
17. Miller K.R              Aus   2958  RF   170    6358
18. Mankad M.H          ~   Ind   2109  LSP  162    5349
19. Goddard T.L     ~   ~   Saf   2516  LFM  123    4976
20. Bailey T.E              Eng   2290  RFM  132    4930
21. Rhodes W            ~   Eng   2325  LSP  127    4865
Note: ~ indicates Left handed batsman/bowler.

3. Individual match performances:

Here we take a simple yardstick. Since we are analysing individual match all-round performances we have to look at a measure which brings out the all-round ability of the player. We need both runs and wickets. One cannot compensate the other. I have defined an 'A' level all-round performance as one in which a player scores a minimum of 100 runs and captures 5 wickets and a 'B' level all-round performance as one in which the player scores 75-99 runs and captures 4 wickets. I understand that match conditions, pitch conditions, quality of opposition, match result et al are relevant factors. However that will complicate the issue and we are only looking at all-round performances here. So I will limit myself to the runs scored and wickets captured.

No  Player        Ctry   A-Perf   B-Perf
                         Tests    Tests

 1. Sobers G.St.A  Win     7        8
 2. Botham I.T     Eng     7        4
 3. Greig A.W      Eng     4        4
 4. Cairns C.L     Nzl     2        9
 5. Kallis J.H     Saf     2        6
 6. Miller K.R     Aus     2        5
 7. Mankad M.H     Ind     2        4
 8. Imran Khan     Pak     2        3
 9. Hooper C.L     Win     2        2
10. Flintoff A     Eng     1        5
11. Pollock S.M    Saf     1        4
12. Kapil Dev N    Ind     1        3
13. Goddard T.L    Saf     1        2
14. Benaud R       Aus     1        2
15. Vettori D.L    Nzl     1        2
16. Wasim Akram    Pak     1        1
17. Vaas WPUJC     Slk     1        1
18. Hadlee R.J     Nzl     0        7
19. Shastri R.J    Ind     0        4
20. Rhodes W       Eng     0        1
21. Bailey T.E     Eng     0        0
Note: A-Perf: 100 or more runs and 5 or more wkts in same test.
      B-Perf: 75-99 runs and 4 wkts in same test.

4. Final All Rounder Rating Index:

Finally, as we normally do always, a composite calculation involving the five key factors with suitable weightings. The formula is explained below.

				  Weightage    Computation methodology

Batting average     30.00      The maximum for an average of 60.00 and above
Runs scored         15.00      The maximum for a Runs scored value of 10000 and above
Bowling average     30.00      The maximum for an average of 15.00 and below
Wickets taken       15.00      The maximum for a Wickets taken value of 500 and above.
Test perfs          10.00      One point per 'A' performance + 0.4 point for 'B' performance.

Total              100.00

No  Player        LBt LBw Ctry  Runs BatAvg  Wkts BowAvg   ARIdx

 1. Sobers G.St.A  ~   ~  Win   8032  57.78   235  34.04   69.15
 2. Kallis J.H            Saf   9761  55.46   240  31.23   67.74
 3. Botham I.T            Eng   5200  33.55   383  28.40   61.27
 4. Imran Khan            Pak   3807  37.69   362  22.81   60.81
 5. Pollock S.M           Saf   3781  32.32   421  23.12   58.95
 6. Hadlee R.J     ~      Nzl   3124  27.17   431  22.30   56.71
 7. Miller K.R            Aus   2958  36.97   170  22.98   54.05
 8. Kapil Dev N           Ind   5248  31.05   434  29.65   53.98
 9. Wasim Akram    ~   ~  Pak   2898  22.64   414  23.62   50.88
10. Cairns C.L            Nzl   3320  33.54   218  29.40   49.49
11. Greig A.W             Eng   3599  40.44   141  32.21   48.24
12. Goddard T.L    ~   ~  Saf   2516  34.47   123  26.23   45.27
13. Vaas WPUJC     ~   ~  Slk   2996  23.97   348  29.31   44.01
14. Flintoff A            Eng   3494  32.35   206  32.21   43.39
15. Benaud R              Aus   2201  24.46   248  27.03   42.74
16. Rhodes W           ~  Eng   2325  30.19   127  26.97   40.83
17. Mankad M.H         ~  Ind   2109  31.48   162  32.32   40.04
18. Bailey T.E            Eng   2290  29.74   132  29.21   38.06
19. Vettori D.L    ~   ~  Nzl   2745  26.65   257  34.44   37.52
20. Shastri R.J        ~  Ind   3830  35.79   151  40.96   33.81
21. Hooper C.L            Win   5762  36.47   114  49.43   28.67
Note: ~ indicates Left handed batsman and bowler.

The top 5 all-rounders of all time are Sobers, Kallis, Botham, Imran Khan and Pollock. Hadlee and Kapil Dev run these 5 close. No surprises except that Kallis is so close to Sobers at the top.

Sobers stands supreme at the top, helped by 8032 runs at an average of 57.78, 235 wickets at an average of 34.04 and 15 outstanding performances in Tests. Kallis would have to perform at this high level for couple of more years to overtake Sobers.

Kallis has come first in two of these measures. He has been a vastly under-rated all-rounder. However one cannot question his credentials - 9761 runs at an average of 55.46 and 240 wickets at an average of 31.23. Independently these figures would be considered great as a batsman and acceptable as a bowler.

Botham is deservedly in the third position helped by his match-winning performances. Imran Khan's reasonably high batting average and very low bowling average have propelled him to the fourth position. Pollock is another all-rounder not normally given his due. He has got a batting average higher than Greame Hick and a bowling average 2.5 below Shoaib Akhtar.

At the other end, the three spinning all-rounders are there. All have barely acceptable batting and bowling averages. Vettori's high bowling average lets him down.

The Australians coined a new definition of an all-rounder, viz., the wicketkeeper. I wanted to do an analysis of the wicketkeepers. However I have decided to do a separate piece on that for two reasons. The first is that this article has become quite long, but more importantly, the players who have the toughest job in cricket deserve their own special article. Hence that will be covered in a later article.

PS: Anticipating readers' requests and in order to have a more complete coverage I have lowered the bar to 1500 runs, 20.00 Batting Avge and 75 wickets and presented a concluding report. Initially I thought of lowering the bar only for pre-1970 players but decided to enlarge the scope. So we now have Steve Waugh, Walter Hammond, Mushtaq, Faulkner, Jayasuriya et al in the Top-20. 17 new all-rounders have come in. I re-iterate that my suggested cut-off is still the earlier one and this table has been presented only for information.

No  Player         LBt LBw Ctry  Runs BatAvg Bow Wkts BowAvg ARIdx

 1. Sobers G.St.A    ~   ~  Win  8032  57.78 LM  235  34.04  69.15
 2. Kallis J.H              Saf  9761  55.46 RFM 240  31.23  67.74
 3. Botham I.T              Eng  5200  33.55 RFM 383  28.40  61.27
 4. Imran Khan              Pak  3807  37.69 RF  362  22.81  60.81
 5. Pollock S.M             Saf  3781  32.32 RFM 421  23.12  58.95
 6. Hadlee R.J       ~      Nzl  3124  27.17 RFM 431  22.30  56.71
 7. Miller K.R              Aus  2958  36.97 RF  170  22.98  54.05
 8. Kapil Dev N             Ind  5248  31.05 RFM 434  29.65  53.98
 9. Waugh S.R               Aus 10927  51.06 RFM  92  37.45  53.83
10. Wasim Akram      ~   ~  Pak  2898  22.64 LFM 414  23.62  50.88
11. Hammond W.R             Eng  7249  58.46 RFM  83  37.81  50.18
12. Cairns C.L              Nzl  3320  33.54 RFM 218  29.40  49.49
13. Greig A.W               Eng  3599  40.44 RFM 141  32.21  48.24
14. Mushtaq Mohammad        Pak  3643  39.17 RLB  79  29.23  46.59
15. Faulkner G.A            Saf  1754  40.79 RLB  82  26.59  46.30
16. Goddard T.L      ~   ~  Saf  2516  34.47 LFM 123  26.23  45.27
17. Jayasuriya S.T   ~   ~  Slk  6973  40.07 LSP  98  34.35  44.09
18. Vaas WPUJC       ~   ~  Slk  2996  23.97 LFM 348  29.31  44.01
19. Flintoff A              Eng  3494  32.35 RFM 206  32.21  43.39
20. Benaud R                Aus  2201  24.46 RLB 248  27.03  42.74
21. Lindwall R.R            Aus  1502  21.15 RF  228  23.03  42.45
22. Noble M.A               Aus  1997  30.26 ROB 121  25.00  41.76
23. Rhodes W             ~  Eng  2325  30.19 LSP 127  26.97  40.83
24. Armstrong W.W           Aus  2863  38.69 RLB  87  33.60  40.25
25. Mankad M.H           ~  Ind  2109  31.48 LSP 162  32.32  40.04
26. Reid J.R                Nzl  3428  33.28 RFM  85  33.35  38.58
27. Streak H.H              Zim  1990  22.36 RFM 216  28.12  38.32
28. Bailey T.E              Eng  2290  29.74 RFM 132  29.21  38.06
29. Vettori D.L      ~   ~  Nzl  2745  26.65 LSP 257  34.44  37.52
30. McMillan B.M            Saf  1968  39.36 RFM  75  33.83  37.26
31. Woolley F.E      ~   ~  Eng  3283  36.08 LSP  83  33.92  36.54
32. Shastri R.J          ~  Ind  3830  35.79 LSP 151  40.96  33.81
33. Illingworth R           Eng  1836  23.24 ROB 122  31.20  31.83
34. Prabhakar M             Ind  1600  32.65 RFM  96  37.30  30.51
35. Abdul Razzaq            Pak  1946  28.62 RFM 100  36.93  30.50
36. Klusener L       ~      Saf  1906  32.86 RFM  80  37.91  28.78
37. Hooper C.L              Win  5762  36.47 ROB 114  49.43  28.67
38. Emburey J.E             Eng  1713  22.54 ROB 147  38.41  25.24

I was keen to observe whether or not Bangladesh has made material progress since it won full ODI status ten years ago. To do this, I took the 17 bilateral one-day series of three matches against Test-playing opposition (and excluding Zimbabwe) that it has participated in over that time, and extracted the batting average of Bangladesh and its opponents in those series:

The ratio in the last column is obtained by dividing Bangladesh’s batting average by the average of the opposition. It will be noted that all these values are less than 1, indicating that on no occasion has Bangladesh been able to match it with the opposition.

	Click here for a bigger image © Ric Finlay

Bangladesh had some poor results early, particularly against South Africa and Australia, but there was a perceptible improvement from 2004, giving hope that it would soon match it with allcomers. However, they have let the standard lapse significantly in the last year or so, and three of its worst five performances have occurred in the last twelve months.

Using an Excel chart, I plotted these results on a graph, and asked the software to superimpose a trend line. As can be seen in the graphic, the trendline has a negative slope, indicating that Bangladesh’s performances are in fact deteriorating. It appears that much work needs to be done with the cricketers in that country yet. With so many big names moving over to the ICL, the task becomes even more difficult for Bangladesh.

	Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne are the only pair to take more than 1000 Tests wickets in matches they've both played in © Getty Images

Even though the batsmen always bat in pairs, it is while bowling that players are very effective operating in tandem. This article looks at Test bowler combinations who have bowled together most effectively, achieved more together than individually, won more and performed well away from home.

New table on % of Team wkts added.

Modified table covering % of Wins incorporated.

As normally done I have to set up some selection criteria. However this time there only two criteria, as explained below.

a. Both the bowlers should have captured a minimum of 100 wickets each. This means that the two bowlers would have played together for around 25 Tests which is a fair length for anybody's career. This will also ensure that the number of qualifying pairs will be kept to a managable size.

b. Both the bowlers should have bowled in the concerned Test. This ensures that in cases where an allrounder has played purely as a batsman, the Test will not be considered. A classic case is Imran Khan. He has played seven of his 86 tests purely as a batsman. In these Tests he has played alongside Sarfraz Nawaz and/or Abul Qadir. Without this condition, these Tests would dilute the Imran/Sarfraz and Imran/Qadir pairs.

Of course if Imran has played in a Test and bowled very few overs (such as the Bangalore Test of 1987, when the spinners Tauseef and Iqbal Qasim bowled 90% of the overs because of the pitch conditions) the Test will still be considered for inclusion.

Fleetingly I considered using an innings as a unit for determining the qualifying criteria and dismissed that in favour of a Test, which is the most acceptable and understandable unit of game.

With these dual conditions, the number of bowler pairs who qualify is 69. Let us look at this data in various ways.

1. By number of wickets captured:

The most basic measure of the bowling pair's performance.

Analysis of Test bowlers operating in tandem - Wickets captured

No Cty TstsWkts Player 1          Wkts     Player 2          Wkts

 1.Aus 104 1001 Warne S.K          513  &  McGrath G.D        488
 2.Slk  92  875 Muralitharan M     572  &  Vaas WPUJC         303
 3.Win  95  762 Walsh C.A          373  &  Ambrose C.E.L      389
 4.Pak  61  559 Wasim Akram        282  &  Waqar Younis       277
 5.Saf  93  547 Pollock S.M        377  &  Kallis J.H         170
 6.Ind  53  498 Kumble A           281  &  Harbhajan Singh    217
 7.Saf  63  490 Pollock S.M        235  &  Ntini M            255
 8.Saf  83  488 Kallis J.H         170  &  Ntini M            318
 9.Aus  58  484 McGrath G.D        274  &  Gillespie J.N      210
10.Eng  60  476 Willis R.G.D       222  &  Botham I.T         254

However, these are not true "bowling in tandem" pairs since these are two different types of bowlers. The next few pairs are similar type bowlers and headed by two truly great opening bowling combinations, Walsh /Ambrose and Wasim/Waqar. There is no doubt these two pairs would have acted in tandem in most of these Tests. Then there are a few fast bowling pairs from different countries.

However the interesting pair is Kumble/Harbhajan. This is the only pure spin bowling pair in the top 10. It is certain that they would have bowled together for long spells.

To view the complete table, please click here.

2. Bowling Average.

Here the individual bowling averages are analysed. In other words, how the individual bowler's bowling average improved or declined while bowling with the other specified bowler. Did the bowler gain or not.

Analysis of Test bowlers operating in tandem - Bowling Average comparisons

No Cty Wkts Bowler 1     Wkts Avge CarAvg  Diff Bowler 2       Wkts Avge CarAvg  Diff

 1.Aus 1001 Warne S.K     513 24.88 25.42  0.54 McGrath G.D     488 21.38 21.64  0.26
 2.Slk  875 Muralitharan  572 21.80 21.96  0.16 Vaas WPUJC      303 27.87 29.31  1.44
 3.Win  762 Walsh C.A     373 24.29 24.44  0.15 Ambrose C.E.L   389 21.12 20.99 -0.13
 4.Pak  559 Wasim Akram   282 21.33 23.62  2.29 Waqar Younis    277 22.93 23.56  0.63
 5.Saf  547 Pollock S.M   377 22.62 23.12  0.50 Kallis J.H      170 33.49 31.23 -2.26
 6.Ind  498 Kumble A      281 27.79 29.33  1.54 Harbhajan Singh 217 32.22 30.87 -1.35
 7.Saf  490 Pollock S.M   235 24.71 23.12 -1.59 Ntini M         255 27.67 28.22  0.55
 8.Saf  488 Kallis J.H    170 32.65 31.23 -1.42 Ntini M         318 28.68 28.22 -0.46
 9.Aus  484 McGrath G.D   274 20.52 21.64  1.12 Gillespie J.N   210 26.28 26.14 -0.13
10.Eng  476 Willis R.G.D  222 24.63 25.20  0.57 Botham I.T      254 25.67 28.40  2.73

To view the complete table, please click here.

3. Wickets per Test:

Here I have not considered the bowlers individually. Rather the two are considered as an integral unit and their performance together is compared with their career performance.

Analysis of Test bowlers operating in tandem - Wickets per Test as a pair

No Cty TstsWkts Bowler 1            Bowler 2        Pair Career  Diff
                                                     W/T   W/T

 1.Pak  61  559 Wasim Akram       & Waqar Younis    9.16 (8.27)  0.90
 2.Eng  49  367 Flintoff A        & Hoggard M.J     7.49 (6.64)  0.85
 3.Ind  33  251 Kapil Dev N       & Doshi D.R       7.61 (6.77)  0.84
 4.Pak  38  313 Wasim Akram       & Mushtaq Ahmed   8.24 (7.54)  0.70
 5.Ind  42  368 Chandrasekhar B.S & Bedi B.S        8.76 (8.14)  0.62
 6.Eng  60  476 Willis R.G.D      & Botham I.T      7.93 (7.37)  0.57
 7.Win  60  418 Sobers G.St.A     & Gibbs L.R       6.97 (6.44)  0.53
 8.Pak  35  275 Sarfraz Nawaz     & Imran Khan      7.86 (7.33)  0.53
 9.Eng  40  243 Giles A.F         & Flintoff A      6.07 (5.59)  0.48
10.Aus  27  263 McGrath G.D       & MacGill S.C.G   9.74 (9.27)  0.47
...
...
67.Aus  30  212 Gillespie J.N     & Lee B           7.07 (7.90) -0.83
68.Pak  34  239 Imran Khan        & Wasim Akram     7.03 (8.09) -1.06
69.Pak  36  265 Waqar Younis      & Saqlain Mushtaq 7.36 (8.53) -1.17

At the other end, there are a few interesting combinations. The two Pakistani pairs Waqar/Saqlain and Imran/Wasim bowled much better separately than together. It is amazing that Wasim and Waqar are great together but fall off with two other bowlers respectively. Surprisingly Gillespie and Lee also lost out when bowling together.

To view the complete table, please click here.

4. Wins achieved:

This is an important measure. Did the pair do better than the team performance over the years.

Analysis of Test bowlers operating in tandem - Wins achieved

No Cty TstsWkts Bowler 1          Bowler 2        Wins  %   Win % Diff

 1.Aus  25  227 MacGill S.C.G     Lee B            21 84.0 (46.8) 37.2
 2.Aus  45  371 McGrath G.D       Lee B            36 80.0 (46.8) 33.2
 3.Aus  45  421 Warne S.K         Lee B            35 77.8 (46.8) 30.9
 4.Aus  27  263 McGrath G.D       MacGill S.C.G    20 74.1 (46.8) 27.2
 5.Ind  37  287 Harbhajan Singh   Zaheer Khan      18 48.6 (22.6) 26.1
 6.Win  29  263 Marshall M.D      Ambrose C.E.L    17 58.6 (33.7) 24.9
 7.Win  33  291 Holding M.A       Marshall M.D     19 57.6 (33.7) 23.9
 8.Ind  29  249 Kumble A          Pathan I.K       13 44.8 (22.6) 22.3
 9.Win  36  322 Garner J          Marshall M.D     20 55.6 (33.7) 21.8
10.Aus 104 1001 Warne S.K         McGrath G.D      71 68.3 (46.8) 21.4
...
...
67.Ind  79  394 Kapil Dev N       Shastri R.J      10 12.7 (22.6) -9.9
68.Aus  30  211 Lindwall R.R      Benaud R         11 36.7 (46.8)-10.2
69.Aus  41  346 Benaud R          Davidson A.K     15 36.6 (46.8)-10.3

MacGill and Lee form the most successful pair in this regard, achieving 37% over the team numbers. Lee pairs with three bowlers and takes the first three places. The Indian's recent resurgence is shown by the high placing of Harbhajan/Zaheer and Kumble/Pathan. These two pairs have achieved 26% and 22% over and above India's overall results.

At the other end there are Kapil/Shastri who were bowling in tandem during the very unsuccessful 1980s period for India. Similarly Lindwall, Benaud and Davidson were part of moderate Australian sides of the 1950s.

Just to give the complete picture I have given the Team performance summary here.

Cty <-----Total----->   <------Home----->   <-----Away------> 
    Tests Wins    %     Tests Wins    %     Tests Wins    %

Aus   696  326  46.84     361  202  55.96     335  124  37.01
Bng    53    1   1.89      25    1   4.00      28    0   0.00
Eng   877  306  34.89     447  175  39.15     430  131  30.47
Ind   421   95  22.57     213   64  30.05     208   31  14.90
Nzl   342   65  19.01     166   41  24.70     176   24  13.64
Pak   335  103  30.75     141   54  38.30     194   49  25.26
Saf   336  115  34.23     181   74  40.88     155   41  26.45
Slk   180   54  30.00      90   38  42.22      90   16  17.78
Win   448  151  33.71     201   74  36.82     247   77  31.17
Zim    83    8   9.64      44    6  13.64      39    2   5.13
Icc     1    0   0.00       0    0   0.00       1    0   0.00

5. Away wickets captured:

Analysis of Test bowlers operating in tandem - Home / Away wickets

No Cty Wkts Bowler 1         Wkts Awy Hme Bowler 1       Wkts Awy Hme

 1.Aus 1001 Warne S.K         513 249 264 McGrath G.D     488 248 240
 2.Slk  875 Muralitharan M    572 203 369 Vaas WPUJC      303 138 165
 3.Win  762 Walsh C.A         373 182 191 Ambrose C.E.L   389 201 188
 4.Pak  559 Wasim Akram       282 170 112 Waqar Younis    277 166 111
 5.Saf  547 Pollock S.M       377 162 215 Kallis J.H      170  70 100
 6.Ind  498 Kumble A          281  80 201 Harbhajan Singh 217  65 152
 7.Saf  490 Pollock S.M       235  96 139 Ntini M         255  75 180
 8.Saf  488 Kallis J.H        170  77  93 Ntini M         318 100 218
 9.Aus  484 McGrath G.D       274 173 101 Gillespie J.N   210 117  93
10.Eng  476 Willis R.G.D      222  84 138 Botham I.T      254 104 150

To view the complete table, please click here.

6. Away wins achieved:

Analysis of Test bowlers operating in tandem - Away wins achieved

No Cty Tsts Bowler 1          Bowler 2       <-------Away------->
                                            TstsWins   %  TWin %  Diff

 1.Ind  29  Kumble A          Pathan I.K      15   8 53.3 (14.9)  38.4
 2.Aus  45  Warne S.K         Lee B           24  18 75.0 (37.0)  38.0
 3.Aus  25  MacGill S.C.G     Lee B            8   6 75.0 (37.0)  38.0
 4.Aus  45  McGrath G.D       Lee B           19  14 73.7 (37.0)  36.7
 5.Aus  30  Gillespie J.N     Lee B           18  13 72.2 (37.0)  35.2
 6.Aus  53  Warne S.K         Gillespie J.N   37  24 64.9 (37.0)  27.9
 7.Aus  38  Miller K.R        Johnston W.A    17  11 64.7 (37.0)  27.7
 8.Ind  37  Harbhajan Singh   Zaheer Khan     22   9 40.9 (14.9)  26.0
 9.Aus  37  Lindwall R.R      Johnston W.A    16  10 62.5 (37.0)  25.5
10.Pak  40  Waqar Younis      Mushtaq Ahmed   28  14 50.0 (25.3)  24.7
...
...
67.Ind  52  Kumble A          Srinath J       23   1  4.3 (14.9) -10.6
68.Win  26  Garner J          Croft C.E.H     15   3 20.0 (31.2) -11.2
69.Eng  35  Statham J.B       Trueman F.S     12   2 16.7 (30.5) -13.8

At the other end Kumble/Srinath were part of the Indian teams of the 1990s when the Indians could win nothing while travelling. Statham and Trueman were part of the average 1960s England. The surprise is Garner and Croft who together won only 3 out of 15 matches away. This was due to the not very successful tours of West Indies to England, Pakistan and New Zealand.

To view the complete table, please click here.

7. % of Team wickets captured:

This is based on Pavan's request for analyzing the % of team wickets captured. I have limited to just analyzing the % of team wickets captured without bringing the other subjective factors.

Analysis of Test bowlers operating in tandem - % of Team Wickets captured

No Cty TstsWkts Player 1         Wkts Player 2       Wkts  TeamWkts & %

 1.Slk  92  875 Muralitharan M    572 Vaas WPUJC      303   1738  50.3
 2.Aus 104 1001 Warne S.K         513 McGrath G.D     488   2016  49.7
 3.Aus  27  263 McGrath G.D       121 MacGill S.C.G   142    531  49.5
 4.Ind  53  498 Kumble A          281 Harbhajan Singh 217   1020  48.8
 5.Aus  45  421 Warne S.K         246 Lee B           175    862  48.8
 6.Pak  61  559 Wasim Akram       282 Waqar Younis    277   1167  47.9
 7.Aus  25  227 MacGill S.C.G     119 Lee B           108    477  47.6
 8.Aus  35  307 McDermott C.J     141 Warne S.K       166    660  46.5
 9.Win  36  322 Garner J          152 Marshall M.D    170    700  46.0
10.Ind  29  249 Kumble A          149 Pathan I.K      100    545  45.7
...
...
65.Saf  93  547 Pollock S.M       377 Kallis J.H       170   1792  30.5
66.Saf  83  488 Kallis J.H        170 Ntini M          318   1609  30.3
67.Eng  49  280 Underwood D.L     161 Greig A.W        119    941  29.8
68.Aus  43  241 Miller K.R        135 Johnson I.W      106    834  28.9
69.Ind  79  394 Kapil Dev N       243 Shastri R.J      151   1464  26.9

At the other end surprisingly the two South African pairs have captured only around 30%. It must be remembered that Pollock might appear in two pairs. Kapil Dev and Shastri prop up the list.

8. Win analysis - Revised:

This is based on Avi/Alex/Peter's suggestions to modify the Wins achieved analysis. They have in turn put in their suggestions based on my request.

Analysis of Test bowlers operating in tandem - Wins achieved (Alternate)

No Cty Bowler 1          Bowler 2            Pair T/W/%   Ctry T/W/%   Diff

 1.Win Gibbs L.R         & Hall W.W          37 19 51.4   97  32 33.0  18.4
 2.Eng Trueman F.S       & Lock G.A.R        27 15 55.6  148  59 39.9  15.7
 3.Win Marshall M.D      & Ambrose C.E.L     29 17 58.6  180  78 43.3  15.3
 4.Aus McGrath G.D       & Lee B             45 36 80.0  166 108 65.1  14.9
 5.Aus Warne S.K         & Lee B             45 35 77.8  186 117 62.9  14.9
 6.Eng Caddick A.R       & Gough D           30 13 43.3  118  34 28.8  14.5
 7.Aus MacGill S.C.G     & Lee B             25 21 84.0  119  83 69.7  14.3
 8.Eng Willis R.G.D      & Botham I.T        60 25 41.7  223  61 27.4  14.3
 9.Ind Harbhajan Singh   & Zaheer Khan       37 18 48.6  104  36 34.6  14.0
10.Win Marshall M.D      & Walsh C.A         42 23 54.8  190  79 41.6  13.2
...
...
60.Pak Waqar Younis      & Saqlain Mushtaq   36 14 38.9  119  50 42.0  -3.1
61.Eng Statham J.B       & Trueman F.S       35 13 37.1  136  56 41.2  -4.0
62.Eng Snow J.A          & Underwood D.L     29  8 27.6  164  53 32.3  -4.7
63.Ind Kapil Dev N       & Shastri R.J       79 10 12.7  132  24 18.2  -5.5
64.Pak Imran Khan        & Wasim Akram       34  9 26.5  221  71 32.1  -5.7
65.Eng Underwood D.L     & Willis R.G.D      37 10 27.0  173  57 32.9  -5.9
66.Saf Ntini M           & Nel A             34 15 44.1  116  59 50.9  -6.7
67.Ind Kumble A          & Srinath J         52 13 25.0  156  52 33.3  -8.3
68.Win Garner J          & Croft C.E.H       26  9 34.6   79  37 46.8 -12.2
69.Aus Lindwall R.R      & Benaud R          30 11 36.7   98  50 51.0 -14.4

There are significant changes at the top. The Australians effectively move down and are replaced by less fancied pairs. Also the differential is far less pronounced now. At the other end two pairs, Kumble/Srikkanth and Lindwall/Benaud remain and the West Indian pair of Garner/Croft get in. The reason has been explained elsewhere.

Let me conclude by saying that this analysis is not to determine the best bowling pair. I have just presented various aspects of bowlers bowling together and pointed out to some great and some not-so-great performances. Different bowlers have achieved greatness in different measures operating together and the article brings these to light.

Finally five pairs stand out. The Spin/Pace pairs of Warne/McGrath and Murali/Vaas. Then the two great fast bowling combinations of Walsh/Ambrose and Wasim/Waqar. Finally the spin duo of Kumble/Harbhajan. Out of these only two pairs are still operating and might go on to improve their results.

Comments (17)

September 10, 2008

Another look at the best ODI batsmen

Posted by Ric Finlay at in Trivia - batting

Comments (86)

September 6, 2008

The best two ODI batsmen - Richards and Tendulkar

Posted by Ananth Narayanan at in Trivia - batting

	Viv Richards takes the top spot among ODI batsmen again © Getty Images

The large number of comments received and the very valid points mentioned in these have made me come out with a follow-up to my article on the best ODI batsman. In the article itself I had mentioned the following points as worthy of consideration for possible tweaks. I see no additions to these now.

1. Avoidance of double weighting for "Wins".
2. Possible cap on runs scored weightage.
3. Adjust for the paucity of matches played during the early 10 years.
4. Giving weight to key tournament wins such as World Cup and Champion's Trophy.
5. The subjective nature of MOMs, already mentioned by me in the main post did not go well with readers.
6. Quite a few readers have, while accepting Tendulkar's position at no.1, have questioned the wide gap between Tendulkar and Richards. It worries some readers that this gap will keep on widening. Let me deal with these one by one. The last point is automatically taken care of by the tweaks.

1. Wins weightage and avoiding double weightage:

Ultimately winning has to carry some weightage in any analysis. Why do we respect and admire the 1980s West Indian teams. Not just because they had great players but because they won more than a fair share of the matches played. The recent Australian team might not be as admired as the earlier West Indian teams. However they are certainly respected, by peer players and viewers alike. I have looked at this carefully and have decided not to do any changes. The Win% does not seem to have any problems. The actual Wins had some comments but that carries only 5% weightage.

2. Possible cap on runs scored weightage and adjusting for the paucity of matches played during the early 10 years.

I have combined these two points. First I considered putting a cap on the runs scored weightage. The problem is that whatever figure I choose as the cap, it will only affect the very few players above that cap. For instance if I fix the cap at 10.0 points, only the 7 batsmen who have scored above 10,000 runs will be affected. That seems too arbitrary and discriminatory to me. The purpose would only be to put down a few players which is wrong.

The better alternative would be to leave the runs scored weightage as it is and adjust the early players' runs scored points upwards by an acceptable factor. This also means that we would increase certain players' rating points, for a valid reason, and not penalise a few.

After a few trials and errors, I have come out with the following formula which, I feel, would be acceptable to most readers and critics. This is a linear and simple formula.

No. of years played by the batsman: YEARS

Total number of matches played during these years: MATCHES
                     
                     YEARS x 75
Multiplying Factor = ----------
                      MATCHES

Runs scored Index points = Runs scored Index points x Multiplying Factor.

Note: 75 is the average number of matches played per year during the period 1971-2008. Taking the average over all the 38 years will be less beneficial to the earlier era batsmen than taking the average, say, over the recent 10 years, working to 140. I am ready to accept this since the last 10 years have seen the ridiculuous peak of 191 matches during 2007 and so on. We have to allow for the natural growth patterns being maintained.

Example of Richards' adjustment
-------------------------------
Career span: 16 years (1975 to 1991)
Matches during career: 657 (22:first to 678:last)
Adjusting Factor: (16 x 75) / 657 = 1.8264
Richards' Runs scored index value = 6721/1000 = 6.721
Adjusted Runs scored index value = 6.721 x 1.8264 = 12.28

This looks eminently fair and equitable. What this tweak says is that if there had been more matches played during Richards' career of 16 years, he would have played in 341 matches and scored 12,280 runs. The only assumption is that the batsmen would have maintained their average. This is a very fair assumption.

I have taken all the matches played as the basis instead of the matches played by the batsman's country since this is a better method over a long period of time. Also the matches skipped do not play any point.

There is no doubt that the readers will come out with simple and complex alternatives to this segment. No denying that these may also be better. However I have gone on a simple, easy-to-understand-and-implement algorithm. The objective of redressing the balance between today's batsmen and earlier batsmen has been achieved.

Care is taken that if the Multiplying Factor is < 1.0, the adjustment does not take place. In other words no current player is penalised.

3. Giving weight to World Cup and Champion's Trophy wins & avoiding the subjective weighting for MOMs:

Readers will note that the MOM issue was raised by me in the original article itself. I myself am concerned with the subjective nature of MOMs and the fact that for many years batsmen got the preference while assigning MOMs. I cannot also deny the validity of statements asking for weight to be given for World Cup successes. These are once-in-four-years grand events and doing well in these is very essential for all top batsmen. I have also considered the 5 ICC/Champion's Trophys, this being second only to the 9 World Cups. No other tournament has been considered. With one stroke I have taken care of these two points.

What I have done is to completely remove the MOM weightings. Indtead the 5 points are allocated for Major Cup wins in the following manner.

World Cup wins: 1.0 point.
World Cup finalists: 0.5 point.
ICC/Champions' Trophy wins: 0.5 point.

Both Sri Lanka and India which shared the 2002 ICC Trophy get 0.5 point each. Again there may be arguments. However let me say this. One can argue till the cows come home, go out and then come home again, there is no single perfect answer. With 5 points available for allocation, this seems to be very fair. The top point scorers are given below.

Ponting: 4.0 points (3 WC wins + 1 WC finalist + 1 ICT win).
Gilchrist: 3.50 points (3 WC wins + 1 ICT win).
Richards: 2.50 points (2 WC wins + 1 WC finalist)
...
Tendulkar: 1.00 points (1 WC finalist + 1 ICT win)

It can be seen that Richards and Tendulkar, each with a WC finalist tag, are not too far apart. Also Tendulkar could add to his silverware.

Let us now look at the revised table.

ODI : The best batsmen ever - upto match no 2759 (31 Aug 2008)

No Cty Batsman          Total  Runs  Avge  R/I  S/R  BwQty Wins Win% % TS WC/Icc

                        100.0  20.0  15.0  5.0  25.0  15.0  5.0  5.0  5.0  5.0

 1.Win Richards I.V.A   77.37 12.28 11.75 4.02 24.60 12.20 2.64 3.53 3.85 2.50
 2.Ind Tendulkar S.R    75.96 16.36 11.08 4.02 21.16 12.13 4.12 2.47 3.61 1.00
 3.Aus Ponting R.T      73.09 11.11 10.81 3.81 19.63 12.63 4.32 3.59 3.19 4.00
 4.Aus Gilchrist A.C    71.73  9.62  8.97 3.45 23.59 12.12 4.04 3.52 2.93 3.50
 5.Slk Jayasuriya S.T   70.61 12.80  8.18 3.13 22.52 12.01 4.44 2.64 2.89 2.00
 6.Aus Bevan M.G        67.96  6.91 13.40 3.53 18.31 13.88 3.10 3.34 3.00 2.50
 7.Win Haynes D.L       66.93 12.38 10.34 3.65 16.74 12.16 3.18 3.34 3.63 1.50
 8.Pak Inzamam-ul-Haq   66.74 11.74  9.88 3.35 18.31 11.81 4.28 2.83 3.04 1.50
 9.Pak Javed Miandad    65.21 11.04 10.43 3.39 17.98 13.04 2.38 2.55 3.40 1.00
10.Aus Symonds A        65.20  5.01 10.09 3.19 22.41 12.58 2.98 3.86 2.58 2.50
11.Win Lara B.C         65.19 10.40 10.12 3.60 19.64 12.38 2.78 2.33 3.43 0.50
12.Saf Kallis J.H       65.15  9.61 11.17 3.64 17.33 12.98 3.50 3.15 3.26 0.50
13.Win Greenidge C.G    64.65  9.45 11.26 4.04 17.70 10.49 1.80 3.52 3.88 2.50
14.Aus Waugh M.E        64.49  8.50  9.84 3.60 19.39 12.29 3.04 3.11 3.22 1.50
15.Aus Hayden M.L       64.08  6.13 10.95 3.96 19.36 12.26 2.38 3.70 3.34 2.00
16.Ind Dravid R         64.00 10.59  9.87 3.44 17.36 13.25 3.14 2.36 3.00 1.00
17.Ind Ganguly S.C      63.84 11.36 10.26 3.79 18.14 10.64 2.98 2.40 3.27 1.00
18.Slk de Silva P.A     63.47  9.28  8.73 3.14 20.61 12.52 2.56 2.08 3.06 1.50
19.Aus Waugh S.R        63.24  7.57  8.23 2.63 19.26 13.75 3.92 3.02 2.38 2.50
20.Pak Saeed Anwar      62.98  8.82  9.80 3.62 20.20 10.95 2.82 2.85 3.42 0.50
21.Win Lloyd C.H        62.88  5.74  9.77 2.83 22.05 12.17 1.32 3.79 2.71 2.50
22.Aus Chappell G.S     62.82 10.70 10.05 3.24 21.60 10.27 0.70 2.36 3.39 0.50
23.Aus Jones D.M        62.26  6.99 11.15 3.77 18.86 11.99 1.96 2.99 3.55 1.00
24.Pak Mohammad Yousuf  61.81  9.24 10.80 3.64 18.19 10.81 3.12 2.90 3.12 0.00
25.Saf Rhodes J.N       61.75  5.93  8.78 2.70 20.11 15.00 3.10 3.16 2.46 0.50
26.Aus Hussey M.E.K     61.61  2.39 13.91 3.47 20.54 12.26 1.30 3.57 2.68 1.50
27.Ind Sehwag V         61.36  5.81  8.11 3.12 23.82 12.41 1.90 2.49 2.70 1.00
28.Saf Gibbs H.H        61.31  7.59  9.12 3.39 20.24 11.95 2.88 3.12 3.03 0.00
29.Pak Zaheer Abbas     61.23  6.53 11.91 4.29 22.42  8.82 0.60 2.42 4.25 0.00
30.Ind Azharuddin M     61.21  9.38  9.23 3.04 18.97 12.09 3.20 2.40 2.90 0.00

Richards has gained on two indices, the run scored index and Cup wins index. These are sufficient to move him just ahead of Tendulkar. Tendulkar could catch up with Richards by scoring additional runs while maintaining his average and run-rate figures. He could also win the World Cup and/or Champions' Trophy.

Ponting, Gilchrist and Jayasuriya exchange places. Bevan, Haynes, Miandad and Symonds move up. Lara, Kallis and Ganguly move out of the Top 10.

What is important is that in the earlier top-10 group there was only one player from an earlier era, Richards. Now we have three players, all great ones worthy of this placing. These are Richards, Haynes and Javed Miandad.

To view the complete list, click here

A final note to the readers.

Richards was the uncrowned king of his era between 1975 and 1990. Tendulkar similarly was the greatest batsman of his era, between 1990 and now. These are the two greatest batsmen of all time. The top placement of either of these batsmen does not demean the other. To recognise Richards' greatness it is not necessary to put Tendulkar down. Similarly Tendulkar need not be deified by villifying Richards. You would honour your own favourite batsmen if you recognise the greatness of the other great batsmen. Neither of them needs nor deserves blind hero worship. Simply accept that they are the two greatest ODI batsmen ever.

Did Richards cause the loss of 1983 WC for West Indies. Did Tendulkar cause the loss of the 2003 WC for India. No way. It was the collective inability of the respective losing teams to rise to the occasion which lost them the matches. To be fair, it was the totally committed way India played in 1983 and Australia played in 2003 which made them deserved winners. Any other interpretation takes credit away from the winning teams' performances.

A similar situation exists with the 1992 and 1996 World Cups. Imran Khan, Inzamam, Miandad, Wasim Akram, Aaqib and Mushtaq all contributed to a great Pakistani win. Four years later, Aravinda D'Silva, Gurusinha and Ranatunga fashioned a wonderful victory. I suggest you savour these great moments instead of arguing about odd failures.

Let me also mention that I would not have gone ahead with these tweaks if I had not been convinced of the validity of such changes. It is difficult for me to acknowledge specific readers since there were many who sent in invaluable comments. My thanks to all these discerning readers.

There will be no follow-up to this follow-up article. Comments will be published only if they respect the writers, other readers and more importantly players, all of them great ones. And, please, positively none of these "XYZ IS THE GREATEST." type of messages.

Comments (114)

September 1, 2008

Tendulkar and Richards swap places as best ODI batsmen

Posted by Ananth Narayanan at in Trivia - batting

	Sachin Tendulkar pips Viv Richards to the top of the list © AFP

I started this. So I have to finish it...

It is amusing. A few days back whole lot of people were lambasting me for not having Tendulkar on top. Now another set of people are screaming that Tendulkar is on top. Hey guys, this is only an analysis. I am one insignificant analyst who works with a computer and a Cricket database. The greats remain greats, whatever I (or for that matter you all) say.

Just one more thing. Unlike what some have suggested, I have not gone out of the way to put Tendulkar on top. He is one of the greatest but NOT my favourite batsman.

As done before I have incorporated a summary response to readers' comments at the end.

In my previous article I had taken two important ODI batting measures and attempted to analyse batsmen skills using those. It elicited the usual comments on the additional parameters for consideration. Hence instead of doing a straightforward follow-up to that analysis, I have gone the whole hog and after considering all relevant parameters, come out with what I feel should be a very fair ODI batsmen ranking based on what they have achieved over their careers.

The following 8 facors are considered.

1. Total runs scored (TRS)
2. Batting Average (AVGE)
3. Runs per Innings (RPI)
4. Strike Rate (STRT)
5. Quality of bowlers faced (BOWQTY)
6. % of Team runs (TRPER)
7. Wins achieved 
   - Absolute number of wins (WINS)
   - Win % of matches played (WINSPER)
8. MOM awards received/frequency (MOM).

A brief description of each factor and the weights given to each parameter is outlined below. The total points add up to a nice round sum of 100.

1. Total runs scored (20 points)

This is a recognition of the longevity of the player. There is no doubt that the runs scored has to be given decent weightage. At the same time care has been taken to see that the olden era players such as Richards, Greenidge et al do not suffer unduly. My belief is that it is very unlikely for any batsman, including Tendulkar, to exceed 20000 runs. Hence the limit seems correct. The formula used is

• TRS = Total runs scored / 1000.

2. Batting Average (15 points)

This is a straightforward calculation. We need not worry about not-outs since there is a separate factor for that. Since the batting average is unlikely ever to exceed 60.0, we are within the maximum level. The formula used is

• AVGE = Batting average / 4.0.

Note: David Barry is doing some simulation work with a view to establish a correlation between Average and Strike Rates. It is too early to incorporate these first level findings. Hence at this stage I have taken the simple, easily understandable method of separating the Average and Strike Rate measures with individual weightages. Similarly Jeff Grimshaw's ideas about treating balls played as a resource and giving credit for the same is quite good. However I do not want too many overlapping parameters. Already I have Average and RPI.

3. Runs per Innings (5 points)

This is to mitigate the factor of a high number of not-outs, especially for middle-order batsmen. Again a straightforward calculation. Since the Batting average is unlikely ever to exceed 50.0, we are within the maximum level. The formula used is

• RPI = Runs per innings / 10.0.

Note: I briefly toyed with Abhihjeet Dongre's excellent suggestion of excluding from the total number of innings the innings in which the batsman has finished not out at a score below his batting average. This redresses the balance towards middle order batsmen slightly. However I have finally rejected this tweak since I feel that they have already got the full benefit of not outs while calculating the Batting Average. The purpose of separation of these two factors will be lost if I do not use the full complement of innings played.

4. Strike Rate (25 points)

I consider this factor as the most important measure and that is reflected in the weightage. However much we talk about the importance of scoring runs, it is essential that these are scored at a reasonable pace. It does not mean that every century should be a run-a-ball one. However, it is true that many a match has been lost because the batsmen have not moved up the scoring rate at the right time.

However a major tweak has been done. The actual strike rates have been adjusted up or down based on the decade scoring rates pro-rata. In other words, if Viv Richards played between 1975 and 1991, his actual scoring rate has been adjusted pro-rata for the three decades, viz., 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. In general this will mean that the older players will get a slight benefit since the scoring rates were lower, as indicated in the table below.

                          AllMats   1970s   1980s   1990s   2000s

Matches played               2759      82     516     933    1228
Batsmen innings             47947    1418    8838   16266   21425
Runs scored               1142018   30292  202884  386508  522334
Balls bowled              1473233   46208  277516  505727  643782
Runs per ball               0.775   0.656   0.731   0.764   0.811
% of all-matches avge      100.0%   84.6%   94.3%   98.6%  104.7%

The actual and adjusted strike rates for a few top players is given below. All these adjustments seem very reasonable. The only clear cases are for batsmen such as Pietersen and Dhoni who have played all their matches in the current decade and hence have the same adjustment of -4.4%. The others are pro-rata. For instance, Tendulkar's and Lara's strike rates have been adjusted much less since they have played during 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Zaheer Abbas gains the maximum since his career spanned 1975-1985, the low-scoring years.

Batsman         Prev SR   Adj SR   % chg

Richards I.V.A    90.2     98.4    +9.1%
Haynes D.L        63.1     66.9    +6.0%
Jones D.M         72.6     75.4    +3.9%
Greenidge C.G     64.9     70.8    +9.1%
Zaheer Abbas      80.0     89.7   +12.1%

Tendulkar S.R     85.5     84.6    -1.1%
Jayasuriya S.T    91.0     90.1    -1.1%
Gilchrist A.C     96.9     94.4    -2.7%
Lara B.C          79.5     78.6    -1.3%
Sehwag V          99.1     95.3    -3.8%
Shahid Afridi    111.2    108.2    -2.7%
Klusener L        89.9     88.2    -1.9%
Dhoni M.S         91.3     87.2    -4.4%
Pietersen K.P     87.5     83.6    -4.4%

Since the only Strike Rate to exceed 1.00 is that of Shahid Afridi, I have accepted the fact that only he will exceed the maximum level. The formula used is

• STRT = (Adjusted) Strike Rate x 25.0.

5. Quality of bowling faced (15 points)

This is a double weighted adjustment. The objective is to make sure that the runs acored against stronger teams such as Australia are given much higher weighting than the runs scored against weaker countries such as Zimbabwe. Care also has to be taken that the weaker Australian teams such as those during the mid-1980s are treated accordingly. The complex process is explained below.

First a bowling quality index is found for each innings. This is done by the following formula (somewhat similar to the one used by David Barry). I had thought of this earlier, but dismissed it as too complex. Now I think it is necessary.

              Sum of (Balls bowled by each bowler x Bowler's bowling avge)
Innings BQI = -----------------------------------------------------
                          Sum of (Balls bowled by each bowler)

In one of my earlier articles on Team Strength analysis I used a simple average of the top 5 Bowling averages. That was when I was trying to find the strength of team as it walked on to the field. However here I am trying to find how valuable the batsman's innings was. Hence the actual deployment of the bowling resources is necessary. Wasim Akram will make the Pakistani team that much strong, on paper, however, if he did not bowl a single ball, to that extent the bowling lacks sting.

Now comes the second weighting. For this the actual scores of batsman and the Innings BQI are used. The formula is explained below.

                     Sum of (Batsman innings score x Innings BQI)
Batsman career BQI = --------------------------------------------
                           Sum of (Batsman innings score)

There is some convergence of values as batsmen score many runs. Note the BOWQTY value for the top 5 batsmen. Hence special care has to be taken to assign points. Amongst batsmen who have scored greater than 2000 runs, Craig McMillan is the best with a BQI of 34.48 and Habibul Bashar the worst with a BQI of 43.47. If we lower the limit to 1000 runs, Nicky Boje is the best with a BQI of 31.3 and Glenn Turner the worst with a BQI of 47.63. No batsman has a career BQI below 30.00 and no batsman has a career BQI above 50.0. The Batsman career BQI is used to derive the index value based on the following formula.

• BOWQTY = 50.0 - Batsman career BQI.

6. % of Team runs (5 points).

The value of a batsman to the team is also determined by the share of the batting load he takes. In other words the % of team runs he scores. This is a secondary parameters and has a weighting only of 5 points. With a criteria of 2500 runs and above, the highest share of team runs scored is by Zaheer Abbas with 21.6%, followed by Greenidge with 19.2%, then by Richards with 19.2% and finally by Tendulkar with 18.1%. The formula used is

• TSPER = % of Team share * 20.0.

Upto this point, the full weight will be given only if the batsman has scored above 2000 runs. Else the points secured will be proportionately downsized.

7. Wins achieved (5 points)

Winning is something special, if not everything (as the Americans profess). No one wants to lose. Hence we should give value to this important aspect of the game without going overboard. This is done in two parts. The first is to derive an index value solely based on the number of wins achieved. This will benefit players who have played more games and have been part of successful teams. The highest number of wins achieved is 220 by Jayasuriya, followed by Ponting with 216, Inzamam with 214, Gilchrist with 214 and Tendulkar with 206. The formula used is

• WINS = No of wins /50.0.

8. Win % achieved (5 points)

What about Richards who achieved 132 wins in 187 matches (a 70.6 win %), which is much higher than that of Tendulkar, 206 wins in 417 matches (49.4%) or Steve Waugh, 196 in 325 (60.3%). His win % suffers only in comparison to the current Australian team, some of whom having over 75%.

This factor addresses this problem. Credit is given to the % of wins achieved, subject to minimum number of matches being reached. The formula used is

• WINSPER = % of wins x 5.0.

9. MOM awards received (5 points).

The last parameter is on the MOM awards achieved. This is the only subjective measure, as pointed to by Shankar Krishnan of Riyadh. However since this is the only individual evaluation measure available I have to consider it. Whatever be the idiosyncracies of the adjudicators there is no doubt that the MOM awards are a pointer to the contribution to the wins achieved by the team.

I have tried to remove the subjective factor, to a certain extent, by considering the frequency of awards also in addition to the absolute number of awards. This is also fair to the older players. Consider this. Richards has got 31 awards in 187 matches. He lags far behind Jayasuriya who has got 45 awards in 415 matches. However when we consider the frequency, Richards has a frequency of one in 6 matches, while Jayasuriya, one in 9.2 matches. Incidentally Tendulkar leads the absolute number of awards with 55. The frequency ranges from 6.0 to 20.0 (limiting value). The formula used is

• MOM = (MOM Awards/30.0) + (3.0 * (20.0 - MOM Frequency)/15.0).

For the last two points, the full weight will be given only if the batsman has played above 50 matches. Else the points secured will be proportionately downsized.

Now the table of top 30 ODI batsmen of all time. The table is current upto match 2759, the facile English win over the hapless South Africans, giving them a 4-0 lead.

The top ODI batsmen of all time - as on 28 August 2008.

No.Cty Batsman         Total  Runs  Avge  R/I  S/R  BwQty Wins Win% % TS MOMs

                       100.0  20.0  15.0  5.0  25.0  15.0  5.0  5.0  5.0  5.0

 1.Ind Tendulkar S.R   79.27 16.36 11.08 4.02 21.16 12.13 4.12 2.47 3.61 4.32 
 2.Win Richards I.V.A  73.14  6.72 11.75 4.02 24.60 12.20 2.64 3.53 3.85 3.83 
 3.Slk Jayasuriya S.T  72.24 12.80  8.18 3.13 22.52 12.01 4.44 2.64 2.89 3.63 
 4.Aus Ponting R.T     71.87 11.11 10.81 3.81 19.63 12.63 4.32 3.59 3.19 2.78 
 5.Aus Gilchrist A.C   71.12  9.62  8.97 3.45 23.59 12.12 4.04 3.52 2.93 2.88 
 6.Win Lara B.C        67.70 10.40 10.12 3.60 19.64 12.38 2.78 2.33 3.43 3.01 
 7.Saf Kallis J.H      67.70  9.61 11.17 3.64 17.33 12.98 3.50 3.15 3.26 3.05 
 8.Pak Inzamam-ul-Haq  66.72 11.74  9.88 3.35 18.31 11.81 4.28 2.83 3.04 1.48 
 9.Aus Bevan M.G       66.00  6.91 13.40 3.53 18.31 13.88 3.10 3.34 3.00 0.53 
10.Ind Ganguly S.C     65.87 11.36 10.26 3.79 18.14 10.64 2.98 2.40 3.27 3.03 
11.Pak Saeed Anwar     65.55  8.82  9.80 3.62 20.20 10.95 2.82 2.85 3.42 3.07 
12.Aus Waugh M.E       65.50  8.50  9.84 3.60 19.39 12.29 3.04 3.11 3.22 2.52 
13.Aus Symonds A       65.43  5.01 10.09 3.19 22.41 12.58 2.98 3.86 2.58 2.74 
14.Slk de Silva P.A    65.02  9.28  8.73 3.14 20.61 12.52 2.56 2.08 3.06 3.05 
15.Win Haynes D.L      64.62  8.65 10.34 3.65 16.74 12.16 3.18 3.34 3.63 2.93 
16.Saf Gibbs H.H       63.66  7.59  9.12 3.39 20.24 11.95 2.88 3.12 3.03 2.36 
17.Ind Dravid R        63.47 10.59  9.87 3.44 17.36 13.25 3.14 2.36 3.00 0.47 
18.Pak Mohammad Yousuf 63.22  9.24 10.80 3.64 18.19 10.81 3.12 2.90 3.12 1.40 
19.Saf Kirsten G       63.06  6.80 10.24 3.67 17.88 13.45 2.40 3.24 3.35 2.03 
20.Saf Klusener L      62.90  3.58 10.28 2.61 22.05 13.92 2.18 3.19 2.27 2.83 
21.Aus Jones D.M       62.82  6.07 11.15 3.77 18.86 11.99 1.96 2.99 3.55 2.48 
22.Aus Hayden M.L      62.80  6.13 10.95 3.96 19.36 12.26 2.38 3.70 3.34 0.72 
23.Pak Javed Miandad   62.74  7.38 10.43 3.39 17.98 13.04 2.38 2.55 3.40 2.18 
24.Saf Rhodes J.N      62.73  5.93  8.78 2.70 20.11 15.00 3.10 3.16 2.46 1.47 
25.Eng Pietersen K.P   62.46  2.82 11.96 3.87 20.90 14.46 0.68 2.10 3.44 2.24 
26.Ind Sehwag V        62.31  5.81  8.11 3.12 23.82 12.41 1.90 2.49 2.70 1.95 
27.Ind Dhoni M.S       62.26  3.79 11.85 3.54 21.80 12.73 1.30 2.71 2.90 1.63 
28.Ind Azharuddin M    62.10  9.38  9.23 3.04 18.97 12.09 3.20 2.40 2.90 0.89 
29.Aus Waugh S.R       61.95  7.57  8.23 2.63 19.26 13.75 3.92 3.02 2.38 1.21 
30.Saf Cronje W.J      61.91  5.57  9.66 3.18 19.26 13.51 2.34 3.11 2.92 2.35

Tendulkar is on top, and deservedly so. He has not only scored lots of runs but scored these at a good pace, scored these against good bowlers and contributed more than his share to the Indian cause.

Richards is in second place, again deservedly so. He has scored only 6721 runs, but made up for the huge shortfall in index points with his outstanding average, strike rate, win % and MOM frequency. He may very well move a little bit down in the list in the years to come. But will not lose any of the aura.

Jayasuriya is next, having made up for his low Average and RPI with a mountain of runs scored at a scorching pace. The Lankan readers will be happy that the contributions of the entertainer non-pareil have been recognized. He has managed to retain the third position depsite a poor run of ODI matches against India.

Ponting and Gilchrist, two great Australian batsman, follow in the next two positions, through different combination of high points. Ponting with high average and good strike rate while Gilchrist with lower average and excellent strike rate. Both have great win related numbers.

Lara, Kallis Inzamam, Bevan and Ganguly complete the top 10. This elite placing of these quality batsmen cannot be debated. In fact Lara and Kallis exchanged places after the last match.

There is no doubt that players such as Pietersen (25th currently), Sehwag (26th), Dhoni (27th) and Hussey (39th) will move up the list as they score more runs. However this may be partly compensated by the possible decrease in their averages. Dhoni is surely on the way to becoming an excellent finisher in the Bevan/Hussey mode and as such is unlikely to drop his average. Pietersen's average could drop a little bit. Hussey's could drop significantly unless otherwise he does what Bevan did over a long career.

It should be noted that if we change the weightings, the batsmen will move up or down the list. For instance, Strike Rate could be reduced to 20 points. In that case, Jayasuriya and Ponting will exchange places. But these are minor movements only. It is my firm belief that the top 2, Tendulkar and Richards will remain where they are, whatever be the weightings.

Batsmen such as Kluesener, Dhoni and Pietersen, who have not even scored 4000 ODI runs have managed to reach the top 30 positions in the all-time best batsmen table. This indicates that the weightings for non-longevity measures have been given due importance.

Finally, one important point to be noted. No analyst starts with an idea to prove that one batsman is superior to another or push their favourite batsmen on top. Such shallow analyses will be found out in no time at all. The idea is to come out with a vehicle for healthy discussion and exchange of views. Hence please avoid rude and vicious comments. They have no chance of being read by any one. Pl make your point in a courteous and acceptable manner. The readers have their right to be heard but also their responsibilities to be constructive and courteous.

To view the complete list, click here

This list consists of batsmen who have scored a minimum of 1000 ODI runs. Please remember that many of the calculated points are downsized for batsmen in the 1000-2000 range. They are included only to show where some of the batsmen from the lesser countries stand.

Summary response to readers' comments (Possible tweaks)

1. Avoidance of double weighting for "Wins".

2. Possible cap on Runs scored weighting.

3. Adjust for the paucity of matches played during the early 10 years.

4. Giving weight to key tournament wins such as World Cup and Champion's Trophy.

5. The subjective nature of MOMs, already mentioned by me in the main post does not go well with readers.

6. Quite a few readers have, while accepting Tendulkar's position at no.1, have questioned the wide gap between Tendulkar and Richards. It worries some readers that this gap will keep on widening.

Comments (204)