This offering is less an analysis than a useful table to ensure you dominate at quiz nights. Alternatively, you may be able to impress your workmates at a tea break with your far-reaching knowledge. Questions you will now be able to answer include:

• Who has held the record for the longest time? (Wally Hammond)
• Who has held the record for the most number of Tests? (Allan Border)
• Which player held the record for just one Test? (Joe Darling)
• How many players have held the record? (seventeen)
• How many players held the record in the 1902 calendar year? (five)
• Who was the only player to hold the record posthumously? (Hammond)
• How many currenly-living players have held the record? (six)
• Which country has provided the most players to hold the record? (England, seven)

Note: The dates used are the dates of the last day of the Test in which the record was achieved, rather than the actual date on which it was achieved.

	Sonny Ramadhin took more than 61% of his wickets without any assistance from his fielders © Getty Images

I must thank David Barry for giving me the idea. In his article he has mentioned "Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, who often aimed for the pads or stumps". I myself have expressed similar views earlier. Then I started thinking about doing an article on similar lines. Let us see to what extent the Ws (and others) succeeded at taking care of the batsman by themselves. It is possible that this article has been done elsewhere but mine is a different interpretation and hopefully will bring in a fresh insight.

Let me add that individual dismissal type tables are available in Cricinfo using Statsguru. I have used my data to create composite tables and also sequence by % of total rather than by absolute numbers. I extended the scope of the analysis to bowlers who got wickets by bowling batsmen, getting them out leg-before, take return catches and the rare instances of hitting the wicket. These dismissals do not involve another player.

As usual I have to have a cut-off. I have selected 150 wickets, knowing fully well that there would be protests, since a reasonable number of wickets are needed to get the comparisons going properly. This represents a career of 30-40 matches, the minimum needed for a meaningful comparison. The lowering from 200 also enables me to get a few interesting bowlers such as Shoaib Akhtar, Terry Alderman and Ramadhin.

However, rest assured. The others have not been forgotten. At the end of the article, I have two tables, one specifically for pre-WW2, with a lower cut-off of 100 wickets and another one post-WW2, those who have captured between 100 and 150 wickets. So everyone should be happy.

With this 150 wickets cut-off, there are 80 bowlers. With no further ado, let us move on to the tables. First let me emphasize that these tables do not rate the bowlers in any way since we are only looking at the type of dismissals. Coming on top does not mean that the bowler is a better bowler than one who is 35th.

First the composite table incorporating all the four forms of dismissals.

Table of wickets captured through bowler's own efforts

No Bowler           Type Cty Mat Wkts Bow LBW C&B Total %

 1.Ramadhin S        ROB Win  43 158   62  29  6   97 61.4 
 2.Lindwall R.R      RF  Aus  61 228   98  31  6  135 59.2 
 3.Waqar Younis      RFM Pak  87 373  102 110  6  218 58.4 
 4.Statham J.B       RFM Eng  70 252  102  42  2  146 57.9 
 5.Shoaib Akhtar     RF  Pak  46 178   64  35  4  103 57.9 
 6.Tate M.W          RFM Eng# 39 155   59  25  3   87 56.1 
 7.Wasim Akram       LFM Pak 104 414  102 119  5  226 54.6 
 8.Alderman T.M      RFM Aus  41 170   25  58  3   86 50.6 
 9.Imran Khan        RF  Pak  88 362   96  80  5  181 50.0 
10.Garner J          RF  Win  58 259   69  57  3  129 49.8 
...
...
...
76.Bishop I.R        RF  Win  43 161   26  17  3   46 28.6
77.Hughes M.G        RF  Aus  53 212   23  32  5   60 28.3
78.Bedi B.S          LSP Ind  67 266   49  16 10   75 28.2
79.Ntini M           RF  Saf  91 358   68  23  5   96 26.8
80.Kallis J.H        RFM Saf 123 240   32  25  3   60 25.0

Note: # indicates Career finished before 1940.

I expected Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram in the next 2 positions. However they are in 3rd and 7th positions respectively. Surprisingly the second and fourth positions are filled by two great players of the 50/60s, Lindwall and Statham. Christopher Martin-Jenkins talks about both bowlers being fast, accurate and able to swing the ball either way.

However to compensate, Shoaib Akhtar, the other great Pakistani fast bowler, completes the top 5. The Pakistani quartet dominates the top-10 since Imran Khan is also in that group.

The surprise package, please do not jump on me, is Brian Statham. He is, again, an under-rated top-class bowler. He and Lindwall are on top because of their accuracy while I feel, the four Pakistani bowlers are there because they were faster, but equally accurate. Waqar Younis' in-swinging yorkers and Wasim Akram's ability to get the ball in at will are well known. Shoaib Akhtar's searing pace must have breached many a batsman's defence. It is possible that reverse-swing also has played a part.

Ramadhin is the only spinner in the Top-10.

At the end we have two South African current pace bowlers and Bedi, the great Indian spinner. More about them in the next tables.

To view the complete table, please click here.

Now let us take a look at the table which combines the two most direct forms of bowler dismissals, viz., Bowled and LBW.

Table of wickets: Bowled & LBW

No Bowler           Type Cty Mat Wkts  Bow LBW Tot  %

 1.Ramadhin S        ROB Win  43 158    62  29  91 57.6
 2.Statham J.B       RFM Eng  70 252   102  42 144 57.1
 3.Waqar Younis      RFM Pak  87 373   102 110 212 56.8
 4.Lindwall R.R      RF  Aus  61 228    98  31 129 56.6
 5.Shoaib Akhtar     RF  Pak  46 178    64  35  99 55.6
 6.Tate M.W          RFM Eng# 39 155    59  25  84 54.2
 7.Wasim Akram       LFM Pak 104 414   102 119 221 53.4
 8.Alderman T.M      RFM Aus  41 170    25  58  83 48.8
 9.Imran Khan        RF  Pak  88 362    96  80 176 48.6
10.Garner J          RF  Win  58 259    69  57 126 48.6

Note: # indicates Career finished before 1940.

Now let us see two individual tables, one on Bowled and the other on LBW.

Table of wickets - "Bowled"

No Bowler           Type Cty Mat Wkts  Bow  %

 1.Lindwall R.R      RF  Aus  61 228    98 43.0
 2.Statham J.B       RFM Eng  70 252   102 40.5
 3.Ramadhin S        ROB Win  43 158    62 39.2
 4.Tate M.W          RFM Eng# 39 155    59 38.1
 5.Shoaib Akhtar     RF  Pak  46 178    64 36.0
 6.Barnes S.F        RFM Eng# 27 189    68 36.0
 7.Hall W.W          RF  Win  48 192    65 33.9
 8.Trueman F.S       RF  Eng  67 307   103 33.6
 9.Holding M.A       RF  Win  60 249    81 32.5
10.Bedser A.V        RFM Eng  51 236    70 29.7
...
...
...
74.Pollock S.M       RFM Saf 108 421    59 14.0
75.McGrath G.D       RFM Aus 124 563    76 13.5
76.Kallis J.H        RFM Saf 123 240    32 13.3
77.Vettori D.L       LSP Nzl  84 266    32 12.0
78.Harbhajan Singh   ROB Ind  71 299    35 11.7
79.Hughes M.G        RF  Aus  53 212    23 10.8
80.Vaas WPUJC        LFM Slk 107 348    37 10.6

Note: # indicates Career finished before 1940.

In this classifification, Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram and Imran Khan drop out of the Top 10.

At the other end we have two great recent fast bowlers. Note the very low Bowled % of Pollock and McGrath. Also remember where Vaas is, right at the bottom. But wait for the next table.

Table of wickets - "LBW"

No Bowler           Type Cty Mat Wkts  LBW  %

 1.Alderman T.M      RFM Aus  41 170    58 34.1
 2.Waqar Younis      RFM Pak  87 373   110 29.5
 3.Wasim Akram       LFM Pak 104 414   119 28.7
 4.Vaas WPUJC        LFM Slk 107 348    98 28.2
 5.Hoggard M.J       RFM Eng  67 248    65 26.2
 6.Kapil Dev N       RFM Ind 131 434   110 25.3
 7.Kumble A          RLB Ind 131 616   155 25.2
 8.Gillespie J.N     RFM Aus  71 259    59 22.8
 9.Streak H.H        RFM Zim  65 216    48 22.2
10.Imran Khan        RF  Pak  88 362    80 22.1
...
...
...
76.Gibbs L.R         ROB Win  79 309    21  6.8
77.Davidson A.K      LFM Aus  44 186    12  6.5
78.Ntini M           RF  Saf  91 358    23  6.4
79.Barnes S.F        RFM Eng# 27 189    12  6.3
80.Bedi B.S          LSP Ind  67 266    16  6.0

Note: # indicates Career finished before 1940.

This table confirms the premise we started with. Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram found the batsmen's pads much more often than anyone else, barring one. To be precise, nearly 30% of their successful efforts. One with his toe-splitting inswinging yorkers and the other one with his deadly coming in delivery et al. To think that these two bowled in tandem for most of their careers! Have a quiet moment of sympathy for the non-Pakistani batsmen of the 90s. Towards the end Akhtar also got in.

Vaas is a revelation: he was last in the Bowled table, but here he is fourth. He is also similar to Wasim Akram, bringing the ball in viciously, albiet at a slightly lower pace. The forgotten Hoggard comes in next. The next one is a welcome addition of Kapil Dev, taking a quarter of his dismissals through Lbw. Then Kumble, with his accurate wicket-to-wicket line.

At the other end, we have Bedi propping the table. A very low proportion of 6%. Most of his victims were catches, close and outfield. It should not be surprising to see Ntini at the bottom. With his wide-of-the-crease deliveries, his chances of picking up Lbw decisions was quite low.

I have deliberately stayed away from further breaking these numbers into Home-Away, because I feel there will be uncharitable remarks on Home LBWs. These are all great bowlers and do not deserve any negative comments. Anyway, Imran led the crusade for neutral umpires and for quite some time now the umpiring mistakes are genuine errors or due to incompetence and cannot be attributed to any other ulterior motive.

To view the table of Post-WW2 bowlers (100-150 wkts), please click here.

To view the table of Pre-WW2 bowlers, please click here.

This opens up a few interesting areas of observation.

• The top-10 has a lone spinner, Ramadhin, who incidentally leads the table. Ramadhin, with his unusual action and delivery, cleverly mixing off breaks and leg breaks, achieved over 60% of his dismissals in a direct manner. Possibly Mendis comes close to him, although these are early days.
• The Top-10 has Ramadhin and nine other pacemen. Although spinners come in subsequently (6 out of the top 20). Do we conclude that hitting the stumps and pads (successfully) is a pace bowlers' domain?
• Is there a role played by drop or increase in batsmen's defensive technical abilities.
• Have the Lbw laws played a part. Some of this may be revealed when I complete my period-based analysis.
• An interesting sidelight is that two of the most successful recent bowlers, McGrath and Pollock are way down in the list.
• Zaheer Khan is steadily moving up the Lbw table. Early days, but Ishant Sharma could be there in the top quarter of this table, with his speed and reverse swinging skills.

  Comments (34)

  October 20, 2008

  Analysing wicketkeepers by byes conceded

  Posted by David Barry at in Wicketkeepers

  	Paul Downton conceded just 1.71 byes per 600 balls © Getty Images

  Ananth has tried to rate wicketkeepers in his post below, but there are several problems with his analysis, most of them pointed out by commenters. Wicketkeeping is a fundamentally difficult part of cricket to analyse statistically – the usual records that people talk about are dismissals, but these are highly dependent on the bowlers. If Adam Gilchrist comes out as the best pure keeper, it is because he had a great bowling attack which tried to get edges (as opposed to, say, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, who often aimed for the pads or stumps).

  Nevertheless, we can make a reasonable effort at assessing pure keeping ability by looking at bye rates. To some extent these are also dependent on the bowlers (if they spray the ball down leg a lot then there'll be more byes), but in general the results are much better. The main stat I'll use here is byes per 600 balls. But this figure needs adjusting to be fair – wicket-keeping is easier in some countries than in others. I applied an adjustment factor by country, based on the overall bye rate of away keepers since World War II. (If you go back much further, you find that bye rates were much higher because keepers stood up to the stumps much more often to fast bowling.)

  These were the bye rates per 600 balls for away keepers by country:
  Australia: 3.24
  Bangladesh: 3.25
  England: 3.50
  India: 4.96
  New Zealand: 3.02
  Pakistan: 4.97
  South Africa: 2.60
  Sri Lanka: 4.27 West Indies: 4.48 Zimbabwe: 1.19

  I used as a reference point 3.5 byes per 600 balls. So, if a keeper conceded 2 byes in an innings in India, that would be adjusted to 2 * 3.5 / 4.96 = 1.14 byes.

  Here are the results. I've given both the raw byes per 600 balls and the adjusted byes per 600 balls. Qualification: 20 Tests as wicket-keeper:

                                      per 600 balls
  name              m   balls   byes  byes  adj
  PR Downton        30  29517   84    1.71  1.52
  DJ Richardson     42  43222   143   1.99  2.22
  APE Knott         95  101704  422   2.49  2.32
  NS Tamhane        21  25659   137   3.20  2.37
  IDS Smith         63  63672   277   2.61  2.63
  Khaled Mashud     44  37099   152   2.46  2.69
  SMH Kirmani       88  91761   506   3.31  2.70
  KS More           49  54558   280   3.08  2.80
  RW Taylor         57  59085   285   2.89  2.81
  RD Jacobs         65  69122   294   2.55  2.83

  Paul Downton had the good fortune to play some Tests for England in the 1980s, after the introduction of covered wickets and before the modern trend of picking keeper-batsmen. Khaled Mashud is the most surprising name to see here. This list is not perfect, but at least names like Knott and Taylor are near the top. The full list can be seen here.

  It will become easier to assess wicket-keepers after some years of club-based Twenty20 cricket. With free player movement between sides, bowlers will bowl with various keepers over the course of a career. Then we'll be able to look at how many dismissals each keeper got off the same bowlers, and so dismissal counts will be a much more useful way of assessing pure keeping ability.

  Note: There will be some errors in the byes tallies, because of keepers going off the field and being replaced. Also, I've given the bye rates to two decimal places, but I haven't checked how significant the second decimal place is.

  Comments (44)

  October 16, 2008

  Test wicketkeepers - an analysis

  Posted by Ananth Narayanan at in Wicketkeepers

  	Adam Gilchrist: Is he the best man with the wicketkeeping gloves in Tests? © Getty Images

  A consolidated response to comments:

  There were a number of useful responses. I must say that I seem to have emphasized the wrong points in my analysis. The readers' responses have clarified this. A good analyst has to react to the pulse of the readers. Based on these responses, I will do a follow-up piece, some time in the future, incorporating the following tweaks.

  1.Take away both "batsman quality" parameters.
  2.Strengthen the Byes measure, possibly incorporating outstanding individual innings performances. Also relate it to the team score.
  3.As Daniel has suggested, possibly changing the inclusion criteria to 25 wicket-keeping tests rather than 100 dismissals.
  4.Incorporate % of Team wickets measure, to take care of a.keeper playing in a weak team, b.playing surface (sub-continent), c.type of bowlers et al.
  5.Look at the possible impact the bowler's quality has on the wicket-keeper performance.
  6.Possibly consider dismissals per innings rather than per test.
  I must thank John/Jeff/Kartik/David/Vidhya/Daniel/Marcus/Mparker et al for their useful comments.
  Pl keep on sending your comments.

  The toughest job in Test cricket is that of the wicketkeeper. One needs to concentrate right through the opposing team's innings and possibly open the batting or if lucky, occupy a late-order batting slot. For a few, there's the responsibility of captaincy as well. It is difficult to think of a more demanding position.

  In this article I am going to look at Test wicketkeepers. The emphasis will be on their keeping abilities. I will also look at their batting abilities in a secondary manner and finally a composite look, not in an allrounder capacity but as a wicketkeeper-batsman.

  The following factors are considered and are explained later.

  1. WK- Career dismissals.
  2. WK- Dismissals per match.
  3. WK- Stumpings effected per match.
  4. WK- Byes conceded per match.
  5. WK- Top-order dismissals per match.
  6. WK- Quality of batsmen dismissed.
  7. WK- Match performances - 5 dismissals and above
  8. BAT- Match performances - 100 runs and above
  9. BAT- Runs scored
  10. BAT- Batting Average
  11. BAT- % of Team Runs

  The wicketkeeping measures have a weighting of 40 points and batting measures have a weighting of 20 points. Thus the wicketkeeping measures have a weighting twice that of the batting measures.

  I have not included two measures normally associated with wicketkeepers. The first is "run-outs effected". Unfortunately this information is available, in a reliable form, only for the past 18-20 years or so and it would be unfair to the olden-day keepers if this is included. The other factor is "missed catches/stumpings". This is available, in a proprietary form (not available to anyone), for the past ten years or so and the same rationale applies.

  The criteria for selecting the group of wicketkeepers is that they should have a minimum of 100 dismissals. That is all. There are no batting criteria. This is a fair enough criteria requiring a career of over 25 Tests. Thirty-two wicketkeepers qualify. Mahendra Singh Dhoni has to effect another 16 dismissals to qualify for this group.

  A major adjustment has been done in case of players such as Alec Stewart, Kumar Sangakkara et al, who have played a number of matches as non-wicketkeepers. Only the matches they have played as wicketkeepers have been included. This has been done to be fair to them and others. It cuts both ways with someone like Sangakkara. He will benefit since his dismissals per match will become higher while his batting average will come down since his batting performance hit the stratosphere after he shed his keeping gloves. But this is a correct methodology and is fair to all.

  The following parameters have been used with the allotted weightings.

  
  WICKETKEEPING:

  1. WK - Dismissals effected (10.0 points):

  This list is led by Mark Boucher with 449 dismissals, followed by Adam Gilchrist with 416 dismissals.

  2. WK - Dismissals effected per match (10.0 points):

  This is the most important of the wicketkeeper measures. This single measure defines the contribution of the keeper to the team. This ranges from Gilchrist (4.33) to Syed Kirmani (2.25). Gilchrist is over 10% ahead of the next keeper, who, surprisingly, happens to be England's Geraint Jones. It is one of the great travesties of natural justice that Chris Read, one of the classiest of keepers, was kept out for a number of matches in favour of Jones who, it must be conceded, might even have challenged Gilchrist if he had not missed quite a few chances.

  3. WK - Stumpings effected per match (2.0 points):

  This looks at stumpings, an important wicketkeeping skill, as a per-match measure. This list is led by Bert Oldfield with 0.98 stumpings per match right up to Jeff Dujon, who had a stumping every 16 matches. This is understandable because of the absence of spinners for many years in the West Indian line-up.

  4. WK - Top-order Dismissals effected per match (3.0 points):

  These are the dismissals of batsmen Nos 1-6, irrespective of the team or the batsman's quality. This measure has been included since it is essential to capture top-order wickets irrespective of which team is the opponent. The range is from Gilchrist (2.88) to Moin Khan (1.9). There is no doubt that this is also a measure of the bowling quality. But one cannot deny the keepers the reward for quality work they put in. Nearly half of the top-order batsmen have been dismissed by Gilchrist.

  5. WK - Byes conceded per match (5.0 points):

  Byes are an important aspect of wicketkeeping and this is recognised as an independent measure. The range is from Dave Richardson (3.7) to Saleem Yousuf (10.7). To get these in perspective look at the following numbers. Richardson kept wicket in 70 innings. Out of these 70, in 36 innings (over 50%) he did not concede a bye while conceding 10 or more byes in only two innings. On the other hand, Saleem Yousuf kept wicket in 58 innings. Out of these 58, he had a clean slate in only 10 innings (below 20%) while conceding 10 or more byes in 11 innings.

  6. WK - Quality of Batsmen dismissed (5.0 points):

  This is done in a way different to the one implemented in the allrounder analysis. The keeper will get credit for the difference between the batsman's average and the score at which he was dismissed, subject to a minimum of 0.0. An example from the Bangalore Test will suffice.

  Hayden c Dhoni b Zaheer Khan  0
  Katich c Dhoni b Sharma      63
  Clarke c Dhoni b Zaheer Khan 11 
  		(Okay he was out lbw, but modified to demonstrate the concept.)
  

  Dhoni will get a credit of 53.53 (the average of Hayden) for dismissing Hayden. He will get a credit of 0.0 for dismissing Katich, whose batting average is 39.47. And finally he will get a credit of 36.07 for dismissing Clarke at 11, who has a batting average of 47.07. Contrast this with the allrounder measure where the dismissed batsman's batting average was also added.

  Initially I had included all batsmen. Subsequently I raised the ante and included only batsmen with an average of 20 and above. The reason is that dismissing a batsman with an average of 50 at 40 is a lot more valuable than dismissing a batsman with an average of 10 at 0. The better batsman is likely to score a lot more.

  The compiled total is divided by the number of dismissals. The range is from Dujon (13.6) to Jack Russell (3.7).

  7. WK - Individual match performances (5.0 points):

  These are the matches in which the wicketkeeper has dismissed five batsmen or more. This represents a successful match for the keeper. Gilchrist leads with 29 such performances and, at the other end, Andy Flower, not so surprisingly, has not achieved this even once.

  Based on these calculations the top wicketkeepers' list is given below.

  Table of top wicketkeepers
  
  No Player          Cty     WK
                             40
  
  01.Gilchrist A.C   Aus    30.99
  02.Boucher M.V     Saf    29.18
  03.Marsh R.W       Aus    27.41
  04.Healy I.A       Aus    25.90
  05.Dujon P.J.L     Win    23.17
  06.Knott A.P.E     Eng    22.00
  07.Richardson D.J  Saf    21.86
  08.Jacobs R.D      Win    21.50
  09.Taylor R.W      Eng    20.77
  10.Grout A.T.W     Aus    20.77
  

  Gilchrist is at the top, not just by the number of victims, but due to the high performance factors such as dismissals per match, match performances, low byes conceded, high number of top-order dismissals and the quality of batsmen dismissed. Boucher is a deserving second with a similar performance criteria as Gilchrist and Rodney Marsh is in third. What is heartening is that old timers such as Alan Knott, Bob Taylor and Wally Grout find their place in the top 10.

  
  BATTING:

  7. BAT - Runs scored (5.0 points):

  The range is from Gilchrist, with 5570 runs to Junior Murray with 853 runs. It should be noted that even though Alex Stewart has a career aggregate of 8243 runs, only 4542 of these have been scored while playing as a keeper. Similarly Sangakkara has scored only 3281 out of the 6356 runs as a keeper.

  8. BAT - Batting Average (10 points):

  The range is from Andy Flower (53.71) to Grout (15.08). Even though Sangakkara has an outstanding career batting average of 54.79, his average while playing as a keeper was only 42.12.

  9. BAT - Individual match performances (2.5 points):

  An outstanding performance is defined as a total of 100 runs in a Test match. Note this is not a century but a match aggregate of 100 runs. Gilchrist leads this list with 19 such performances; four keepers have not achieved this even once.

  10. BAT - % of Team runs scored (2.5 points):

  The range is from Flower (15.7%) to Wasim Bari (4.1%). No wonder since Flower was the leading batsman for Zimbabwe.

  Table of top batsmen among wicketkeepers No Player Cty Bat 20 01.Flower A Zim 15.72 02.Gilchrist A.C Aus 15.38 03.Sangakkara K.C Slk 11.74 04.Stewart A.J Eng 11.12 05.Knott A.P.E Eng 11.01 06.Healy I.A Aus 9.69 07.Boucher M.V Saf 9.56 08.Dujon P.J.L Win 9.44 09.Waite J.H.B Saf 8.59 10.Kamran Akmal Pak 8.52 Flower leads the batting table, slightly ahead of Gilchrist. Then come the two keepers, Sangakkara and Stewart, who have played a number of Tests as batsmen. Then comes Knott.

  WICKETKEEPER-BATSMEN:

  Table of top wicketkeeper-batsmen
  
  No Player          Cty    WK      Bat    Total
                            40       20     60
  
  01.Gilchrist A.C   Aus   30.99   15.38   46.37
  02.Boucher M.V     Saf   29.18    9.56   38.74
  03.Marsh R.W       Aus   27.41    8.20   35.61
  04.Healy I.A       Aus   25.90    9.69   35.59
  05.Flower A        Zim   17.93   15.72   33.65
  06.Knott A.P.E     Eng   22.00   11.01   33.01
  07.Dujon P.J.L     Win   23.17    9.44   32.61
  08.Stewart A.J     Eng   20.14   11.12   31.27
  09.Jacobs R.D      Win   21.50    8.15   29.65
  10.Sangakkara K.C  Slk   16.73   11.74   28.47
  

  This is the composite table combining the batting and wicketkeeping points. Gilchrist is on top by a big margin over Boucher, Marsh, Ian Healy and Flower. The quality and class of these five keepers is beyond question. As keepers, there is no doubt Knott and Dujon would be way ahead of Flower. However this is a composite table.

  Because of the tough nature of the wicketkeeping duties, longevity has to be recognised here. It is not easy for a keeper to play 100 Tests: only two keepers have done that. I have given a weighting of 25% for longevity measures; it should possibly be even higher. The remaining 75% weighting is performance-related. There is nothing to prevent a keeper with 150 dismissals or so to qualify for the top five or so. Dave Richardson is in the seventh position in the wicketkeeper table despite effecting only 152 dismissals.

  To view the complete list please click here.

  Note on "Quality of batsmen dismissed"

  Many comments have come in on this parameter. I have answered many individually. This is a common answer.

  The purpose was not to determine the quality of keeping or catch. Overall the purpose is to determine which players contributed most to their team through their on-field performances. This parameter should be viewed as such.

  Everyone has to agree that a wicket-keeper who has co-operated with the bowler to dismiss a top player at a lower score has contributed more to his team, with this dismissal, than a dismissal of the top player at a high score or a lower player. He himself might have taken all.

  The catch might be a straigh-forward nick, taken easily or a one-in-million catch off a slash in front of third slip. THAT DOES NOT MATTER. What we are looking at is "who was dismissed" and "At what score". May not appeal to the purists. But in terms of contribution to the team cause, there is no better measure.

  There is no information on "Chances missed". It is nice to speak of an analysis including this measure. But nothing is gained by talking about a measure which does not exist.

  I certainly do not agree that a wicket-keeper who dismisses Ponting at 100 with a beautiful well-planned stumping is a better keeper than the one who takes a simple catch off Lee at 10. It might appeal to the aesthetic sense more. But not much to the team cause.

  There will be no more individual responses on this topic. This, I feel, is a comprehensive common response. Readers, please talk about the byes, for a change !!!

  Finally please remember that the "Quality of batsmen" carries only 5 points out of a maximum 40.

  Comments (81)

  October 11, 2008

  Lara v spin, and other head-to-head stats

  Posted by Charles Davis at in Batsmen v bowlers

  	Stuart MacGill has conceded 441 runs to Lara, dismissing him just four times, and 223 runs to Dravid without dismissing him once © Getty Images

  The increasing scope of available Test match data in recent years creates new opportunities for cricket statistics. One area where we have more information than in previous years is specific player versus player data. Just how well does a batsman do against a specific bowler? This sort of question has long been of interest to commentators, but in the past this could only be answered in general terms by statisticians.

  I have extracted a few player vs player extremes from Cricinfo’s data (either in specific player v player form or as ball-by-ball text commentary), supplemented by other sources (hat tip to Andrew Samson) so that the record can be extended back to the 1998-99 Ashes series. The data covers over 450 Tests, and is about 99.5% complete, with a majority of the gaps being in some Zimbabwe Tests. This forms a new class of cricket records.
  

  Most of the records below are based on a qualification minimum, with minimum of either 200 balls bowled, or five dismissals, in encounters between specific bowlers and batsmen. A ‘recognised’ batsman is one with an average batting position of less than 7.1.

  Some Player vs Player Records 1998 – 2008

  Most balls bowled by one bowler to one batsman:
  736 N Boje to DPMD Jayawardene (410 runs). Boje bowled 221 balls to Jayawardene in one innings during Jayawardene’s 374 at Colombo in 2006, a single-innings record.

  Most runs by one batsman off one bowler:
  441 BC Lara off SCG MacGill (4 dismissals, batting average 110.3).

  Most runs by one batsman off one bowler (single innings):
  130 in 161 balls by BC Lara (400*) off GJ Batty, St John’s 2004. (Note: Garry Sobers scored 133 of his 365* off Khan Mohammad in 1957-58)

  Most balls bowled by one bowler to one batsman without dismissing him:
  556 Harbhajan Singh to S Chanderpaul (196 runs), in eight matches.

  Most runs scored by one batsman off one bowler without dismissal:
  223 by RS Dravid off SCG MacGill (354 balls in five matches)

  Highest batting average:
  238.0 by JH Kallis off DL Vettori (238 runs for once out).

  Lowest batting average (recognised batsman):
  1.00 by Matthew Bell (NZ) off J Srinath. This is a remarkable case. Srinath dismissed Bell (an opening batsman) five times in Tests and only conceded five runs in 103 balls bowled.

  Most dismissals:
  11 by SK Warne bowling to AG Prince (164 runs, batting average 14.5). Greater numbers can be found going further back than 1998. For example, Mike Atherton fell to Glenn McGrath 19 times in Tests, including pre-1998 matches: a full analysis is not yet available. Atherton’s vulnerability to McGrath is well-known; perhaps less well-known is his failure against Chaminda Vaas, against whom he averaged just 6.6 with five dismissals.

  Highest batting strike rate
  104.3 Runs /100 balls RT Ponting off AR Caddick (batting average 72). This does not include earlier encounters of these two players in 1997, which would take the strike rate down to 91.6. Chris Cairns had a strike rate of 103 against Brett Lee, although his batting average was only 13.4. Shahid Afridi has scored 202 runs at a strike rate of 93.1 against Anil Kumble.

  Highest Bowling Strike Rate (recognised batsman)
  Makhaya Ntini dismissed Nathan Astle six times in just 92 balls bowled to him, conceding 37 runs. Glenn McGrath took Sanath Jayasuriya’s wicket five times in just 76 balls, twice dismissing him with the first ball of an innings, but these figures don’t include the Adelaide Test of 1995-96, where Jayasuriya got the better of McGrath.

  Ajit Agarkar faced only two balls from Mark Waugh, and was dismissed both times. Agarkar was also out to his first two balls from Brett Lee, and has been out three times in the five balls faced he has faced from Lee.

  A final curiosity: If it needed any confirmation, take a look at Brian Lara’s head-to-head batting averages against some leading spin bowling since 1998:
  vs M Muralitharan 124.0
  vs SK Warne 74.0
  vs SCG MacGill 110.3
  vs Danish Kaneria 86.7
  vs N Boje 212.0
  vs A Kumble 22.3

  Kudos to Anil Kumble, who seems to have a much stronger record against Lara than other spinners(though data from their encounters in 1994-96 is not available).

  Over time, it will be possible to extend this data to earlier Tests. However, chances are that earlier data will be more incomplete, as there are quite a few Test matches even in the 1990s for which complete scorebooks have not yet been located. If any readers, especially in India, Pakistan, and the West Indies, know of the existence of detailed Test match scores (not necessarily official ones) from the 1990s or earlier, please get in touch with me through this blog.
  

  Comments (34)

  October 3, 2008

  The best Test all-rounders: a follow-up

  Posted by Ananth Narayanan at in Allrounders

  The main article received a high number of quality responses. A number of useful suggestions were provided and the exchanges were conducted without the acrimony that had been the feature of earlier exchanges. I thank the readers for this trend and hope that this will be continued in future.

  The final table has been slightly modified based on tweaks in the Performance parameter as suggested by Hamish and Kartik. Details at the end.

  I had mentioned that I would do an in-depth article on selected all-rounders incorporating more measures, as suggested by readers. Some of the relevant points mentioned by readers are summarised below.

  1. Take care of an all-rounder being the first/second bowler (e-g., Imran/Hadlee) vs fourth/fifth bowler (e-g., Sobers/Kallis).
  2. Take care of quality of wickets captured.
  3. Take care of quality of bowling faced by the all-rounder in batting.
  4. Equalise Batting and Bowling to a greater extent.
  5. Take into account Bowling strike rates.
  6. Reduce the weight for longevity measures.
  7. Take into account Fielding data.
  8. Take into account Captaincy data.

  I have considered all these requests and incorporated whatever is possible and quantifiable. The response to these points are given below in the same order.

  1. This has been taken care of in a round-about manner. I have determined the % of Balls bowled by the bowler to the Balls bowled by the team. This will clearly give an idea of the bowling importance of the bowler. In addition the % of wickets captured by the bowler to that captured by the team is also deternined to do a more informed determination of the bowler status.
  2. Has been done by assigning the dismissed batsman's batting average to each wicket captured by the player. Capturing the wicket of Tendulkar will add 54.23 to the kitty while dismissing Zaheer Khan will add only 11.77 to the sum. Fair enough.
  3. Has been done by assigning an opposite team's actual weighted bowling strength, based on balls bowled and bowling average, to each run scored by the player. Take three centuries scored by Kallis. The 115 against Zimbabwe will be weighted with a value of 46.47, the 105 against Pakistan will be weighted with a value of 35.40 and the 139 against Bangladesh will be weighted with 59.98. Cannot do more.
  4. Has been done in different ways.
  5. Has been done. The longevity weightings have been halved.
  6. Not done since the Bowling Strike rate is a constituent part of the Bowling Average. I am aware that separating the Bowling Accuracy and Bowling Strike Rate and doing a differential weighting of the two measures will change the dynamics of the calculations. However I see no reason for doing the same separately since the Bowling Average is a universally accepted figure encompassing both. If Sobers has higher bowling strike rate, he makes up for it partly with his accuracy and this is already reflected in his relatively high Bowling Average. Doing the Strike Rate in addition will penalize players doubly.
  7. Not done since an all-rounder analysis should take only Batting and Bowling. Fielding does not become part of a player's all-round abilities. If a fielder fields at first slip, he would get a number of catches. If he fields at long-on, he will get very few catches.
  8. Not done because a player's captaincy ability does not add to his all-round abilities. It is an opportunity given to him which he does very well (as Imran did) or poorly (as Botham did). However what about Hadlee who never captained New Zealand. It was not because he did not have captaincy skills, rather it was because NZ board did not want to overload him. He cannot be penalised for this. Similar situation exists with Kallis/Miller et al.
  The criteria for selecting the elite group of all-rounders is the following.
  • 2500+ runs.
  • 25.00+ Batting average.
  • 100+ wickets.
  • Bowling average less than 40.
  13 players qualify. Out of these, Vettori is excluded since, surprisingly, his bowling average is higher than his batting average and that is not the sign of a world class all-rounder. Hadlee also has a sub-30 batting average but he makes up with an outstanding bowling average. The following 12 all-rounders qualify.

  No Player          Runs   Avge    Wkts   Avge
  
   1.Sobers G.St.A   8032  57.78     235  34.04
   2.Kallis J.H      9761  55.46     240  31.23
   3.Imran Khan      3807  37.69     362  22.81
   4.Miller K.R      2958  36.97     170  22.98
   5.Botham I.T      5200  33.55     383  28.40
   6.Pollock S.M     3781  32.32     421  23.12
   7.Hadlee R.J      3124  27.17     431  22.30
   8.Kapil Dev N     5248  31.05     434  29.65
   9.Cairns C.L      3320  33.54     218  29.40
  10.Flintoff A      3494  32.35     206  32.21
  11.Goddard T.L     2516  34.47     123  26.23
  12.Greig A.W       3599  40.44     141  32.21
  

  All these players have the figures to qualify as all-rounders. They could all bat at no.7 and above and would feature in all their teams as one of the top 5 bowlers.

  However since this list is primarily a post-WW2 list, a separate analysis is done for all the all-rounders who have played their games before 1948. This list is shown at the end.

  The following parameters have been used with the weightings allotted.

  1. BAT - Runs Scored (7.5 points):

  The weighting has been reduced by 50% to 7.5 points. One point per 1500 runs and limited to 7.5 points.

  2. BAT - Batting Average (10 points):

  The range is from Sobers (57.78) to Hadlee (27.17). The point allocation ranges from 0.0 for Batting Average of 25.00 to 10.00 for Batting Average of 60.00.

  3. BAT - Bowling Quality faced (10 points):

  The range is from Botham (34.38), a surprise indeed, to Miller (43.63), indicating the average quality of bowlers during 40s-50s. Botham's number puts paid to the wrong presumption that he was a flat-track-bully and did not do well against good quality bowling.

  The point allocation ranges from 0.0 for Bowling quality value of 50.00 to 10.00 for Bowling quality value of 30.0.

  4. BAT - % of Team Runs scored (5 points):

  The range is from Sobers (15.78%) to Pollock (7.68%), both understandable. The point allocation ranges from 0.0 for TRS % of 0.00 to 5.00 for TRS % of 16.0.

  5. BOW - Wickets captured (7.5 points):

  The weighting has been reduced by 50% to 7.5 points. One point per 60 wickets and limited to 7.5 points.

  6. BOW - Bowling Average (10 points):

  The range is from Hadlee (22.30) to, not surprisingly, Sobers (34.04). To a great extent Sobers has made up his poor strike rate with his accuracy. The point allocation ranges from 0.0 for Bowling Average of 40.00 to 10.00 for Bowling Average of 20.00.

  7. BOW - Wickets Quality (5 points):

  I have always felt that Flintoff consistently captiured top order wickets. This is more than borne by these numbers. The range is from Flintoff (34.85) to Cairns (29.29). Incidentally 84 of Flintoff's 206 wickets (over 40%) are of batsmen with Batting Averages exceeding 40.0.

  The point allocation is from 0.0 for Wkt quality of 25.0 to 5.0 for Wkt quality of 35.0.

  8. BOW - % of Team Balls (5 points):

  As stated already this is a clear indication of the player's importance to the bowling attack. Kallis is clearly the lowest with a % of Team Balls bowled value of 15.22, less than a sixth, indicating that he was, at best, South Africa's fifth bowler. On the other hand, Imran Khan bowled 27.27% of his team balls making him to be the top bowler.

  The range is from 0.0 for Team Balls % of 10.0 to 5.0 for Team Balls % of 30.0.

  9. BOW - % of Team Wickets (5 points):

  This is another indicator of the all-rounder's place in the bowling attack. The previous one indicates the effort put in. This indicates the results. Kallis is clearly the lowest with a % of Team wickets captured value of 16.59, again less than a sixth, indicating that he was, at best, South Africa's fifth bowler. On the other hand, Imran Khan has captured 37.07% of his team wickets making him to be the top bowler. It should be noted that the team wickets are accumulated only in matches where the all-rounder bowled. This is to take care of the 7 matches in which Imran played as a pure batsmen.

  The range is from 0.0 for Team wickets % of 10.0 to 5.0 for Team wickets % of 40.0.

  10. ARF - All Round performances in Tests (10 points):

  This is a great measure of the individual match performances. I have changed the criteria to 100+ runs & 4+ wickets for P1 performances and 75+ runs & 3+ wickets for P2 performances. These are AND conditions and not OR conditions. Since completing the previous article I have realised that this is a true measure of the all-rounder's contributions in individual Test matches since he contributes heavily to the team performance by excelling in both batting and bowling.

  0.5 points are alloted for each P1 performance and 0.25 points for each P2 performance.

  Sobers is the undisputed leader in this category. His performances are listed below. This table will outline his greatness. In 93 Tests he has excelled with P1 level all-round performances in 11. He has done P1/P2 level performances in 24 Tests (more than 25%).

  Sobers G.St.A 
  P1 1960 0490 Eng Win (3+1) 4 wkts & 145 runs (145+  0)
  P1 1960 0491 Eng Win (3+2) 5 wkts & 141 runs ( 92+ 49)
  P1 1962 0526 Ind Win (4+1) 5 wkts & 153 runs (153+  0)
  P1 1962 0529 Win Ind (0+5) 5 wkts & 154 runs (104+ 50)
  P1 1966 0608 Win Eng (5+3) 8 wkts & 174 runs (174+  0)
  P1 1966 0610 Ind Win (3+2) 5 wkts & 103 runs ( 50+ 53)
  P1 1968 0629 Eng Win (1+3) 4 wkts & 113 runs (  0+113)
  P1 1968 0636 Win Eng (3+3) 6 wkts & 247 runs (152+ 95)
  P1 1969 0646 Aus Win (2+3) 5 wkts & 126 runs ( 13+113)
  P1 1971 0685 Win Ind (2+2) 4 wkts & 187 runs (178+  9)
  P1 1972 0695 Win Nzl (4+0) 4 wkts & 177 runs ( 35+142)
  
  P2 1958 0448 Win Pak (1+2) 3 wkts & 132 runs ( 52+ 80)
  P2 1961 0506 Win Aus (5+0) 5 wkts &  85 runs ( 64+ 21)
  P2 1963 0546 Win Eng (0+3) 3 wkts & 154 runs (102+ 52)
  P2 1965 0584 Win Aus (3+0) 3 wkts &  93 runs ( 69+ 24)
  P2 1965 0588 Win Aus (2+2) 4 wkts &  87 runs ( 45+ 42)
  P2 1966 0605 Win Eng (0+3) 3 wkts & 161 runs (161+  0)
  P2 1966 0607 Win Eng (4+1) 5 wkts &  97 runs (  3+ 94)
  P2 1966 0609 Win Eng (3+0) 3 wkts &  81 runs ( 81+  0)
  P2 1968 0643 Win Aus (4+0) 4 wkts &  86 runs ( 19+ 67)
  P2 1969 0654 Win Eng (2+1) 3 wkts &  79 runs ( 29+ 50)
  P2 1971 0684 Win Ind (3+0) 3 wkts & 112 runs (  4+108)
  P2 1971 0686 Ind Win (1+2) 3 wkts & 132 runs (132+  0)
  P2 1973 0726 Win Eng (3+0) 3 wkts &  95 runs ( 21+ 74)
  

  To view all players' performances click here.

  11. ARF - Average Runs scored / Wickets captured per Test (5 points):

  This rounds off the individual Test all-round performances. I total the Runs and 25 times the Wickets and divide the sum by the number of Tests played. This is a clear parameter of consistency and all-round delivery. This is slightly biased in favour of the bowling since an average of 100 runs per Test has been achieved only by one batsman while 4 wickets per Test by 48 bowlers.

  The range is from Hadlee (161.6) to Greig (122.8).

  The point allocation is from 0.0 for ARF value of 100 to 5.0 for ARF value of 160.0 and above.

  Based on these calculations the top all-rounder list is given below.

  No Player           Bat     Bow     A/R    Total
  
   1.Sobers G.St.A   26.47   14.64   12.74   53.86
   2.Botham I.T      17.32   20.91    9.12   47.34
   3.Imran Khan      15.11   25.90    5.72   46.73
   4.Hadlee R.J      12.54   26.85    7.22   46.61
   5.Kallis J.H      25.28   13.97    7.27   46.52
   6.Pollock S.M     13.57   24.39    4.62   42.58
   7.Cairns C.L      15.52   16.36    7.84   39.73
   8.Kapil Dev N     13.80   21.12    4.10   39.01
   9.Miller K.R      12.07   19.28    6.00   37.35
  10.Goddard T.L     14.65   17.30    4.68   36.64
  11.Flintoff A      14.52   16.86    4.89   36.27
  12.Greig A.W       18.69   12.40    5.09   36.17
  

  As expected Sobers is comfortably on top, this time with a cushion of nearly 14%. He is the undisputed leader in Batting and All-round performances and has acceptable Bowling values. What has really tilted the table in his favour is his consistent delivery of all-round performances. No one else has matched him.

  Botham comes next and is just ahead of Imran Khan. He has acceptable fogures in all three areas and this has helped him move to the second place.

  Then three greats occupy the next three positions and these are closely bunched. This trio is led by Imran Khan and followed by Hadlee and Kallis. They are separated by fractions of a point and should really considered as a group. Imran Khan and Hadlee excel in Bowling and have reasonable Batting figures. Kallis has an excellent batting figure and just about reaches the Bowling mark.

  My suggestion to the readers is not to split hairs among these three. A slight change in parameters will move them up or down. I would say that let us take Imran as the first among these three equals. For that matter I would suggest that we take Botham as the first among the four equals since the four all-rounders are within a single % point of each other.

  Then come Pollock, Cairns and Kapil Dev. Those who query Cairns' higher position than Kapil must understand that Cairns has better Batting and Bowling average figures than Kapil Dev. If people refer to Kapil's taking wickets on the Indian soil, one can point out Cairns' scoring runs on those difficult New Zealand pitches. Cairns is again an under-rated all-rounder.

  Sobers is the best batsmen, followed by Kallis. Hadlee is the best bowler, closely follwed by Imran Khan. Sobers is the comfortable leader in the Test match performance area, followed by Botham.

  To view the parameter values and the calculated Index values for these 12 all-rounders click here.

  A look at the pre-World War all-rounders:

  Using Hammond's last Test during 1948 as a cut-off, I have selected all-rounders of the pre-WW2 era, lowering the cut-off to 1000 runs and 50 wickets. The calculations have also been slightly adjusted to provide for the lower cut-off levels, lower batting averages and lower bowling averages. The table is given below.

  No Player         Runs   Avge  Wkts   Avge  Index
  
  1. Faulkner G.A   1754  40.79    82  26.59  38.99
  2. Tate M.W       1198  25.49   155  26.16  34.31
  3. Gregory J.M    1146  36.97    85  31.15  32.47
  4. Hammond W.R    7249  58.46    83  37.81  30.15
  5. Noble M.A      1997  30.26   121  25.00  29.30
  6. Armstrong W.W  2863  38.69    87  33.60  26.16
  7. Rhodes W       2325  30.19   127  26.97  26.02
  8. Kelleway C     1422  37.42    52  32.37  23.68
  9. Woolley F.E    3283  36.08    83  33.92  22.71
  

  Faulkner, the great South African all-rounder is the leader. He is the one all-rounder who would have clearly walked into the all-time all-rounder table. Incidentally Faulkner gets an unadjusted valuation of around 34.5 points. The two Australian all-rounders, Alan Davidson and Richie Benaud are missing from the two tables. They were two genuine all-rounders who would have graced any era.

  Final tweak on performance parameter:

  This is a slightly revised final Table based on two very valid suggestions made by Hamish and Kartik re performances.

  Hamish has suggested that since there is a clear skew, in favour of the batsmen, in fixing the P1 and P2 criteria as 100r/4w and 75r/3w, it should be changed to either P1=100r/5w... or P1=75r/4w. This is a valid suggestion, based on sound statistical analysis and the P1-P2 limits have been changed to 80runs/4wkts and 60runs/3wkts respectively. The point allocation has been changed to 0.5 and 0.3 to reflect the narrowing of gap between P1 and P2.

  Kartik has made a valid suggetion to penalize the very poor performances. This makes sense since virtual non-contribution has to be recognized as we do the above-average contributions. I have taken a cut-off of 40 runs (equivalent to 1w/20r) as the point below which a test is deemed to be a failure for an all-rounder. Suitable adjustment has been made for treating tests like the one Imran played as a batsman. Equivalent runs are taken to compensate for wickets. The penalty has been fixed at 0.15, which is half the P2 value and is quite fair.

  The revised table is given below.

  No Player           Bat     Bow    A/R    Total
  
  01.Sobers G.St.A   26.47   14.64  13.74   54.86
  02.Botham I.T      17.32   20.91  11.07   49.29
  03.Imran Khan      15.11   25.90   7.37   48.38
  04.Hadlee R.J      12.54   26.85   8.72   48.11
  05.Kallis J.H      25.28   13.97   7.17   46.42
  06.Pollock S.M     13.57   24.39   6.37   44.33
  07.Kapil Dev N     13.80   21.12   5.35   40.26
  08.Cairns C.L      15.52   16.36   8.19   40.08
  09.Miller K.R      12.07   19.28   6.55   37.90
  10.Goddard T.L     14.65   17.30   5.18   37.14
  11.Flintoff A      14.52   16.86   5.34   36.72
  12.Greig A.W       18.69   12.40   5.24   36.32
  

  As I had mentioned earlier there are no major differences. The gap between Sobers and others has come down slightly. The only significant move is that Kapil Dev and Cairns have exchanged places. The other minor change is that there is now a larger gap between Hadlee and Kallis so much so that I would consider the second best as the trio Botham, Imran and Hadlee with Botham as the first amongst equals.

  This can be taken as the final table.

  To view the complete table with all values, please click here.

  Comments (55)