Ajantha Mendis' strike-rate of 16 has helped boost the overall strike-rate for spinners in recent years © AFP

This is a statistical summary of the 2784 matches which have been played over the past 36 years, somewhat similar to the Test analysis I had done earlier. Certain changes have been done to the analysis to bring out the nuances of ODIs. As I have indicated in earlier posts, these factors will be incorporated into the ODI batting and ODI bowling analysis which will be done henceforth.

I wanted to incorporate the Duckworth/Lewis (or its equivalent) calculations in ODI matches into the article. However I feel that it warrants a separate article in the light of the farce during the fourth ODI between India and England in Cuttack.

The six periods have been constructed taking into account the number of matches. It is possible minor adjustments will bring major rule changes in sync with the periods. However that would leave the number of matches unbalanced.

Let us get into the analysis of the tables. These tables are current upto ODI #2784, the fourth ODI between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka.

1. Match analysis (Runs/Wkts per match, Rpo, Rpw)

Period    Mats  R/M  W/M  Rpo  Rpw|Mats   Balls    Runs   Wkts

1971-1983  230  386 14.1 4.17 27.4 | 230  127653   88731   3236
1984-1989  368  393 13.6 4.42 28.8 | 368  196071  144445   5017
1990-1995  429  400 13.8 4.43 29.0 | 429  232499  171613   5921
1996-2000  635  426 14.4 4.71 29.6 | 635  344424  270484   9147
2001-2005  647  426 14.1 4.85 30.1 | 647  340291  275350   9149
2006-2008  475  424 14.4 4.95 29.6 | 475  244589  201631   6820

All ODIs  2784  414 14.1 4.65 29.3 |2784 1485527 1152254  39290

The wickets per match has been reasonably steady over the years. There is a 10% increase over the past few years in the runs per match. However, the major change is in runs per over (rpo), which has shown an 18% increase over the years. The current rpo figure is about 10% over the all-time average. The runs per wicket has remained almost the same over the past 25 years.

There must be very little doubt the rpo has shown an increase primarily due to the change in the treatment of the opening overs and Powerplays.

2. Match/Inns Analysis (Low & High inns scores)

Period    %I<100  %I>300 %M>300x2 |Inns  I<100  I>300  M>300x2

1971-1983   7.41    2.86    0.00  | 455    10     13      0
1984-1989   5.49    0.55    0.00  | 729     9      4      0
1990-1995   4.44    2.23    0.47  | 853    10     19      2
1996-2000   1.98    5.48    1.73  |1259     8     69     11
2001-2005   5.77    7.72    2.01  |1283    24     99     13
2006-2008   6.47   10.87    3.58  | 938    20    102     17

All ODIs    4.90    5.55    1.54  |5517    81    306     43

The percentage of (all out) innings below 100 follows a peculiar pattern. It’s very high during the two end periods and very low during one particular period (1996-2000). Frankly, I cannot explain the sub-2% figure.

The 300-plus total, after being virtually non-existent during the 1980s, has now moved to over 10%. In other words, more than one in every 10 innings is a 300-plus innings. The batsmen never had it so good. Spare a thought for the bowlers, shackled in every which way.

I am intrigued when I look at the last few years. There is a high percentage of totals below 100 and an extraordinarily high number of totals above 300. Maybe it indicates a number of weak teams and a few strong teams.

The first match in which both teams exceeded 300 runs occurred in 1992 between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka in New Plymouth. Since then it has happened quite frequently, with high number of occurrences in recent years.

3. Opening partnerships analysis

Period    Open OP100+ OPSub10   |OpPShps 100+ Sub10  Runs

1971-1983 34.9   7.0%   25.5%   |   455   32   116  15863 
1984-1989 34.9   6.3%   27.0%   |   729   46   197  25461 
1990-1995 35.8   7.3%   26.7%   |   853   62   228  30507 
1996-2000 35.3   6.8%   26.9%   |  1259   85   339  44462 
2001-2005 34.5   8.1%   30.6%   |  1283  104   392  44226 
2006-2008 33.7   7.0%   32.4%   |   938   66   304  31621 

All ODIs  34.8   7.2%   28.6%   |  5517  395  1576 192140 

The opening partnerships have averaged around 35 over the years with very little variations. Similarly there has been a 7% occurrence of 100-plus opening partnerships through the different periods. It is only in the failed opening partnerships that there has been a significant 20-25% increase during the current decade. This may again be a reflection of more weaker teams.

4. Extras Analysis - per 300 balls (Extras/Byes/Leg-byes/No-balls/Wides)

Period    E/3b B/3b L/3b N/3b W/3b|Extras Byes Leg-byes No-balls 
Wides

1971-1983 15.1  1.8  8.0  2.7  2.6|  6446  780   3419   1137   
1110
1984-1989 16.9  1.8  8.4  2.5  4.2| 11031 1161   5520   1605  
2745
1990-1995 16.9  1.1  7.2  2.7  6.0| 13060  834   5547   2063   
4616
1996-2000 17.7  1.0  6.0  3.1  7.6| 20325 1153   6901   3547   
8724
2001-2005 17.9  1.0  5.4  3.4  8.1| 20278 1142   6071   3879   
9171
2006-2008 17.4  1.0  5.1  2.4  8.9| 14172  800   4143   1970   
7244

All ODIs  17.2  1.2  6.4  2.9  6.8| 85312 5870  31601  14201  
33610

This time I have computed the extras per 300 balls, as it constitutes being a normal completed innings. The extras per 300 balls has remained fairly static over the years. Byes have dropped significantly after the first two periods and then remained static. This has occurred despite the wicketkeeper standing up to a number of medium-pacers. Similarly, the leg-byes per match was quite high during the first two periods and then dropped off. One possible reason could be the deployment of more spinners after the initial two periods.

The number of wides per 300 balls has increased drastically over the years, certainly because of very strict interpretation of wides by the umpires. It is true the number of off-side wides has increased significantly over the past few years. Also, virtually no allowance is given for any leg-side deviation.

Now we come to no-balls. Very interesting indeed. The last three years has seen a drastic drop in no-balls per match. This is not because the bowlers have suddenly become more attentive about where to land their feet. The reduction has been primarily caused by the free-hit rule, which penalises bowlers to a great extent. While not accepting that this is necessarily a correct law change - it penalises an already-beleagured bowler more - there is no denying the bowlers are now a lot more careful about overstepping.

The recent rule changes also mean that there are more transgressions covered for declaring no-balls, such as short deliveries and deliberate high full tosses. This would also contribute to the increase in no-balls.

5. Results Analysis - (Results/HomeWins/AwayWins/NoRes)

Period    FbtW SbtW OthW NoRes |Mats  FbtW  SbtW  OthW  NoRes

1971-1983 47.8 48.3  0.4  3.5  | 230   110   111     1     8
1984-1989 42.9 53.0  0.5  3.5  | 368   158   195     2    13
1990-1995 51.0 44.5  0.0  4.4  | 429   219   191     0    19
1996-2000 46.5 49.1  0.2  4.3  | 635   295   312     1    27
2001-2005 49.3 46.2  0.2  4.3  | 647   319   299     1    28
2006-2008 46.1 49.1  0.0  4.8  | 475   219   233     0    23

First a summary of the "Other wins" matches.

During two of the periods (early 1990s and early 2000s), the teams batting first won more matches than teams chasing. During the other four periods, more teams have won chasing than defending. Overall also there seems to be an edge for the team batting second. This difference seems to be more pronounced during the past few years. The number of "No results" has also increased significantly, probably caused by the obsession to play matches during all 12 months, irrespective of weather conditions.

1. Batting analysis (Right & Left)

Period    R-Avg L-Avg T-Avg|R-Inns R-Runs|L-Inns L-Runs|T-Inns 
T-Runs

1971-1983 25.00 27.21 25.48| 3125   63208|  847   19077| 3972   
82285
1984-1989 26.99 24.89 26.60| 5174  110394| 1110   23020| 6284  
133414
1990-1995 26.20 28.50 26.80| 5514  114697| 1844   43856| 7358  
158553
1996-2000 25.59 31.74 27.39| 7980  165169| 3211   84990|11191 
 250159
2001-2005 26.64 30.95 27.90| 8068  172554| 3184   82518|11252  
255072
2006-2008 26.53 30.20 27.51| 6145  132316| 2189   55143| 8334  
187459

All ODIs  26.23 29.86 27.18|36006  758338|12385  308604|48391 
1066942

Barring the first period, the batting average seems to have settled around a value of 27.

As in Test matches, the left-handers have a higher average (by a margin of 15%). Most of the reader comments on this topic will be applicable. Note the very high average for left-handers during the most recent period.

2. Batting analysis 2 (Batting strike-rate - Left & Right)

Period    R-SR L-SR T-SR|R-Runs R-Balls|L-Runs LBalls| T-Runs 
T-Balls

1971-1983 63.6 64.5 63.8| 63208   99457| 19077  29586|  82285  
129043
1984-1989 68.0 64.0 67.2|110394  162407| 23020  35986| 133414  
198393
1990-1995 67.1 68.0 67.3|114697  170985| 43856  64480| 158553  
235465
1996-2000 70.8 73.8 71.8|165169  233336| 84990 115219| 250159  
348555
2001-2005 73.4 75.9 74.2|172554  235245| 82518 108727| 255072  
343972
2006-2008 76.3 75.7 76.1|132316  173455| 55143  72877| 187459  
246332

All ODIs  70.6 72.3 71.0|758338 1074885|308604 426875|1066942
1501760

The scoring-rate was quite low during the first three periods and has now picked up to be around the 76-mark. There is a significant variation of around 20% over the years. Barring one period, the left-handers seem to be scoring slightly faster than right-handers.

3. Bowling analysis 1 (Bowling average - Pace & Spin)

Period    P-Avg S-Avg T-Avg|PWkts  PRuns|SWkts  SRuns| TWkts  
TRuns

1971-1983 27.49 34.51 28.64| 2402  66042|  471  16254| 2873  
 82296
1984-1989 30.50 34.86 31.63| 3227  98432| 1124  39185| 4351  
137617
1990-1995 30.84 36.13 32.25| 3754 115771| 1369  49460| 5123  
165231
1996-2000 31.69 34.93 32.76| 5357 169762| 2653  92665| 8010  
262427
2001-2005 31.20 35.88 32.50| 5896 183949| 2277  81697| 8173  
265646
2006-2008 31.24 33.56 31.77| 4734 147904| 1386  46509| 6120  
194413

All ODIs  30.82 35.10 31.97|25370 781860| 9280 325770|34650 
1107630

The bowling average follows the same pattern as batting strike-rate. Quite low during the first period and then plateauing around 31 during the next five periods.

As expected the averages for pace bowlers are lower - only over 10% - when compared to spinners. The last period, however, has seen a narrowing of this gap. The trend of depending on spinners has also picked up as evidenced by the recently concluded Zimbabwe-Sri Lanka series, where both teams had two fast bowlers and an assortment of four to five spinners.

4. Bowling analysis 2 (Bowling strike-rate - Pace & Spin)

Period    P-SR S-SR T-SR|PWkts  PBalls|SWkts SBalls| TWkts
TBalls

1971-1983 43.2 50.7 44.4| 2402  103758|  471  23895| 2873 
127653
1984-1989 43.7 48.9 45.1| 3227  141092| 1124  54979| 4351  
196071
1990-1995 43.8 49.8 45.4| 3754  164280| 1369  68219| 5123  
232499
1996-2000 41.5 46.0 43.0| 5357  222455| 2653 121969| 8010  
344424
2001-2005 39.2 46.7 41.3| 5896  230917| 2277 106387| 8173 
337304
2006-2008 38.3 43.8 39.5| 4734  181269| 1386  60668| 6120  
241937

All ODIs  41.1 47.0 42.7|25370 1043771| 9280 436117|34650 
1479888

Surprisingly, there seems to be a distinct improvement of bowler strike-rates during the past few years. Again, one cannot but point to the number of weak teams playing one-day cricket.

The strike-rate for pace bowlers are 15% better those for spinners. Recently, spinners seem to be striking better, no doubt aided by Ajantha Mendis, who has taken 48 wickets in his first 17 matches at a strike-rate of a wicket every 16 balls. (Yes, you read it right, 16.)

5. Bowling analysis 3 (Bowling rpo - Pace & Spin)

Period    PRpo SRpo TRpo| PRuns  PBalls| SRuns SBalls|  TRuns 
TBalls

1971-1983 3.82 4.08 3.87| 66042  103758| 16254  23895|  82296  
127653
1984-1989 4.19 4.28 4.21| 98432  141092| 39185  54979| 137617  
196071
1990-1995 4.23 4.35 4.26|115771  164280| 49460  68219| 165231  
232499
1996-2000 4.58 4.56 4.57|169762  222455| 92665 121969| 262427  
344424
2001-2005 4.78 4.61 4.73|183949  230917| 81697 106387| 265646  
337304
2006-2008 4.90 4.60 4.82|147904  181269| 46509  60668| 194413  
241937

All ODIs  4.49 4.48 4.49|781860 1043771|325770 436117|1107630 
1479888

The rpo seems to have increased by about 5% during recent years - not a very big change. The surprise is that the all-matches rpo figure for pace bowlers and spinners is almost the same.

6. Dismissals analysis

a. Bowled - (% and per match)

Period   Bowled  Wkts  % of Tot Bow/Mtch

1971-1983   813  2873     28.3     3.5 
1984-1989  1177  4351     27.1     3.2 
1990-1995  1201  5123     23.4     2.8 
1996-2000  1771  8010     22.1     2.8 
2001-2005  1762  8173     21.6     2.7 
2006-2008  1251  6120     20.4     2.6 

All ODIs   7975 34650     23.0     2.9 

b. Lbw - (% and per match)

Period   Lbw    Wkts  % of Tot Lbw/Mtch

1971-1983   289  2873     10.1     1.3 
1984-1989   382  4351      8.8     1.0 
1990-1995   497  5123      9.7     1.2 
1996-2000   820  8010     10.2     1.3 
2001-2005   932  8173     11.4     1.4 
2006-2008   752  6120     12.3     1.6 

All ODIs   3672 34650     10.6     1.3 

c. Caught - (% and per match)

Period   Ct Others Wkts  % of Tot COt/Mtch

1971-1983  1234  2873     43.0     5.4 
1984-1989  1944  4351     44.7     5.3 
1990-1995  2336  5123     45.6     5.4 
1996-2000  3800  8010     47.4     6.0 
2001-2005  3843  8173     47.0     5.9 
2006-2008  2856  6120     46.7     6.0 

All ODIs  16013 34650     46.2     5.8 

d. Stumped - (% and per match)

Period   Stumped  Wkts  % of Tot Bow/Mtch

1971-1983    54  2873      1.9     0.2 
1984-1989   141  4351      3.2     0.4 
1990-1995   183  5123      3.6     0.4 
1996-2000   317  8010      4.0     0.5 
2001-2005   222  8173      2.7     0.3 
2006-2008   194  6120      3.2     0.4 

All ODIs   1111 34650      3.2     0.4 

e. Ct by Wk - (% and per match)

Period   Ct by Wk  Wkts  % of Tot CWk/Mtch

1971-1983   443  2873     15.4     1.9 
1984-1989   648  4351     14.9     1.8 
1990-1995   838  5123     16.4     2.0 
1996-2000  1183  8010     14.8     1.9 
2001-2005  1386  8173     17.0     2.1 
2006-2008  1016  6120     16.6     2.1 

All ODIs   5514 34650     15.9     2.0 

f. Runouts - (% and per match)

Period   Runouts   Wkts  % of Tot  RO/Mtch

1971-1983   356  2873     12.4     1.5 
1984-1989   661  4351     15.2     1.8 
1990-1995   793  5123     15.5     1.8 
1996-2000  1121  8010     14.0     1.8 
2001-2005   887  8173     10.9     1.4 
2006-2008   637  6120     10.4     1.3 

All ODIs   4455 34650     12.9     1.6 

1. While the drop is not as pronounced as Test matches, the percentage of batsmen bowled, which had been high during the first two periods, has fallen to around 20% now.

2. There has been a slight increase in the lbw percentage over the years - possibly reverse-swing coming into play.

3. As expected, the percentage of catches is quite high and has remained around 45% over the years.

4. The percentage of stumpings was quite high at 4% during the late 1990s but has slipped since then. Even now an attacking spinner like Mendis, with 48 wickets in 17 matches, seems to depend more on direct dismissals such as bowled and leg-before wicket.

5. Wicketkeeper catches have only varied slightly and are now a bit higher than the all-matches average percentage.

6. Run-outs peaked to over 15% during the decade 1985-1995 but have dropped off since then. Possibly the introduction of the third umpire seems to favour the batsmen in border-line decisions.

A separate article on Duckworth/Lewis will follow during the coming weeks.

	Waqar Younis dismissed the top seven batsmen during his 7 for 36 against England at Headingley © Cricinfo Ltd

After a couple of rather heavy Test articles, I have reverted to ODIs, that too bowling, an area which tends to be neglected. Also a simpler post which would make for easier reading.

Let us compare two bowling innspells. (We again renew our acquaintance with the term "innspell" which indicates the complete bowling effort in a single innings by a bowler.)

G.A.Mcgrath   7.0-4-15-7
A.D.Mullally  8.0-1-18-4 

McGrath's first innspell contained the "priceless" scalps of Jan-Berrie Burger, Morne Karg, Danie Keulder, Gavin Murgatroyd, Deon Kotze, Louis Burger and Bjorn Kotze, Namibian batsmen who would find it difficult to get into the Tamil Nadu, Victoria or Surrey state/county teams.

The batsmen who Mullally dismissed in the second innspell are Mark Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, Ricky Ponting and Damien Martyn, all for low scores. There is no doubt which is, by far, the more outstanding innspell.

This article analyses ODI bowling innspells from the point of view of "who" was dismissed and more relevantly, "when" was he dismissed. Let me say at the outset that this article is not to determine the best ODI innspells ever, in which case I have to take into account the bowling accuracy, result, match status, match importance and quality of opposition (in a summary form).

We only look at the wickets captured by the bowlers. Who was dismissed credits the bowler with the appropriate batting measure of the batsmen dismissed. (Viv Richards is better than Ponting who incidentally is better than Herschelle Gibbs who in turn is better than Shiv Chanderpaul and so on.) The point is that, at any stage in the innings, it is important to capture Sachin Tendulkar's wicket. I am sure a reader will point to a dismissal of Tendulkar in the 50th over and argue that the wicket is not valuable. I accept that. However I am talking of most matches.

When was the batsman dismissed is the other equally (or probably more) important factor. It is important to dismiss Tendulkar; it is more important to dismiss him sooner than later. Any dismissal below the batting average is good. The lower the batsman score at the time of dismissal the better it would be for the bowling team.

The measures used are equally simple. For the first, who was dismissed, I give credit to the bowler to the extent of the runs per innings value, since that is the fairest of measures. I seriously thought of ODI Batting Index, already presented and discussed in an earlier article. But the big problem of lower strike-rates during the early years is a deterring factor and decade level adjustments make the work quite complex. Batting average tends to favour those with high number of not-outs. Hence runs per innings seem to be the appropriate measure.

The when situation is addressed in an equally simple manner. Credit is given only if the batsman is dismissed for below the batting average (yes, this time we use the more relevant batting average measure). The extent of credit is the difference between the batsman score and batting average. The higher this factor is, the lower the batsman has been dismissed for. The added advantage of using the batting average is that a higher credit can be given for a very low score (0-5) dismissal of a top batsman.

The other important decision is only to consider the wickets 1-8. Lower-order wickets will only distort the overall picture and place more importance on the number of wickets than the quality of wickets. Of course, there may be situations in close matches where lower-order wickets are crucial. Again, my analysis is a limited one covering only the quality of wickets taken.

Readers might ask, why 1-8 and not 1-7 or 1-9. Just to strengthen this point I did a quixotic analysis of the No. 8 batting position of qualifying ODI innings (in all 3907). The results are fascinating. The average batting average of the batsmen who batted at No. 8 is a fairly high 17.80 and the highest is Bevan (53.58). Also 547 (14%) of these no.8 innings have been played by batsmen with batting average exceeding 25.00. This is mainly because many fine allrounders such as Shaun Pollock, Lance Klusener, Wasim Akram, Shahid Afridi, Chris Cairns et al have often batted at No. 8. Also one pinch-hitter at the top forces a top batsman into the position. Hence my decision to consider batting positions 1-8.

I have considered bowlers who have taken four wickets and above. I have lowered the cut-off to four wickets since there are quite a few cases of a bowler taking four top-order wickets. Even with this cut-off, there are 1075 instances. When required, batting averages are tweaked to take care of the low matches played (below 25).

An aside. We have already seen that Bevan (53.58) is the best batsmen to have batted at No. 8. Richards (yes, the great Viv with an average of 47.00) once batted at no.9. Klusener (41.10) once adorned the No. 10 position and the outstanding Salim Malik (32.89) once came in last. These are only aberrations. Richards was run-out and Saleem Malik remained not out.

After this fairly long introduction, let us look at the top 20 performances. This analysis covers matches upto the second ODI between India and England. Two four-wicket innspells were performed in this match, one each by Yuvraj Singh and Broad.

 
 No Bowler          Year MtNo For-Opp Top Dis TopPts DisPts TotPts 
 InnsSpell

 1.Waqar Younis    2001 1724 Pak-Eng  7   7  185.17 172.96 358.13 
 10.0-0-36-7 
      1. Trescothick M.E   0  [Rpi:35.53]  (Avg:37.37 - +37.37)
      2. Knight N.V        9  [Rpi:36.36]  (Avg:40.40 - +31.40)
      3. Stewart A.J      18  [Rpi:28.87]  (Avg:31.60 - +13.60)
      4. Vaughan M.P       2  [Rpi:23.88]  (Avg:27.15 - +25.15)
      5. Shah O.A          3  [Rpi:24.67]  (Avg:27.75 - +24.75)
      6. Collingwood P.D   0  [Rpi:27.29]  (Avg:34.69 - +34.69)
      8. Cork D.G          4  [Rpi: 8.57]  (Avg:10.00 - + 6.00)
 
 2.Vaas WPUJC      2001 1776 Slk-Zim  7   7  169.77 173.24 343.01 
 8.0-3-19-8  
      1. Ebrahim D.D       0  [Rpi:18.99]  (Avg:20.61 - +20.61)
      2. Flower G.W        1  [Rpi:30.83]  (Avg:33.69 - +32.69)
      3. Carlisle S.V     16  [Rpi:25.61]  (Avg:27.68 - +11.68)
      4. Flower A          0  [Rpi:32.63]  (Avg:35.34 - +35.34)
      5. Wishart C.B       6  [Rpi:20.96]  (Avg:23.23 - +17.23)
      7. Taibu T           0  [Rpi:22.24]  (Avg:27.39 - +27.39)
      8. Streak H.H        0  [Rpi:18.51]  (Avg:28.30 - +28.30)

 3.Aaqib Javed     1991 0685 Pak-Ind  7   6  196.25 144.32 340.57  
 10.0-1-37-7
      1. Shastri R.J      15  [Rpi:24.28]  (Avg:29.05 - +14.05)
      2. Sidhu N.S        21  [Rpi:34.76]  (Avg:37.09 - +16.09)
      3. Manjrekar S.V    52  [Rpi:28.49]  (Avg:33.23)
      4. Azharuddin M      0  [Rpi:30.45]  (Avg:36.92 - +36.92)
      5. Tendulkar S.R     0  [Rpi:40.20]  (Avg:44.34 - +44.34)
      7. Kapil Dev N       8  [Rpi:19.11]  (Avg:23.79 - +15.79)
      8. Prabhakar M       7  [Rpi:18.96]  (Avg:24.13 - +17.13)

 4.Collins P.T     2005 2212 Win-Aus  5   4  172.51 140.48 312.99
 10.0-1-43-5  
      1. Clarke M.J       21  [Rpi:32.88]  (Avg:42.47 - +21.47)
      2. Hayden M.L        3  [Rpi:39.57]  (Avg:43.81 - +40.81)
      3. Ponting R.T       0  [Rpi:38.06]  (Avg:43.24 - +43.24)
      5. Lehmann D.S       4  [Rpi:30.48]  (Avg:38.96 - +34.96)
      6. Katich S.M       76  [Rpi:31.52]  (Avg:35.78)
 
 5.Bond S.E        2003 1986 Nzl-Aus  6   6  167.65 143.88 311.53  
 10.0-2-23-6
      1. Gilchrist A.C    18  [Rpi:34.48]  (Avg:35.89 - +17.89)
      2. Hayden M.L        1  [Rpi:39.57]  (Avg:43.81 - +42.81)
      3. Ponting R.T       6  [Rpi:38.06]  (Avg:43.24 - +37.24)
      4. Martyn D.R       31  [Rpi:29.37]  (Avg:40.81 - + 9.81)
      7. Hogg G.B          0  [Rpi:12.15]  (Avg:20.26 - +20.26)
      8. Harvey I.J        2  [Rpi:14.02]  (Avg:17.88 - +15.88)
 
 6.Waqar Younis    2001 1725 Pak-Aus  5   4  169.03 137.11 306.14  
 8.0-0-59-6
      2. Waugh M.E         0  [Rpi:36.02]  (Avg:39.35 - +39.35)
      3. Hayden M.L        0  [Rpi:39.57]  (Avg:43.81 - +43.81)
      4. Bevan M.G         5  [Rpi:35.27]  (Avg:53.58 - +48.58)
      5. Waugh S.R        56  [Rpi:26.28]  (Avg:32.91)
      7. Symonds A        35  [Rpi:31.89]  (Avg:40.37 - + 5.37)
 
 7.Zoysa D.N.T     2004 2158 Slk-Saf  5   5  158.49 145.61 304.10 
 8.0-0-26-5 
      1. Smith G.C        14  [Rpi:38.14]  (Avg:40.89 - +26.89)
      2. Gibbs H.H         7  [Rpi:33.63]  (Avg:36.18 - +29.18)
      3. Boje N           14  [Rpi:19.92]  (Avg:26.68 - +12.68)
      4. Kallis J.H        0  [Rpi:36.70]  (Avg:45.28 - +45.28)
      5. Rudolph J.A       4  [Rpi:30.10]  (Avg:35.58 - +31.58)

 8.Styris S.B      2002 1843 Nzl-Win  6   5  174.05 124.77 298.82 
 7.0-0-25-6 
      1. Gayle C.H        60  [Rpi:37.23]  (Avg:40.06)
      3. Lara B.C          0  [Rpi:36.00]  (Avg:40.49 - +40.49)
      4. Hooper C.L       24  [Rpi:27.97]  (Avg:35.34 - +11.34)
      5. Sarwan R.R        2  [Rpi:35.13]  (Avg:44.18 - +42.18)
      7. Hinds W.W         4  [Rpi:26.50]  (Avg:28.93 - +24.93)
      8. Hinds R.O        11  [Rpi:11.22]  (Avg:16.83 - + 5.83)
 
 9.Lee B           2005 2284 Aus-Icc  4   4  144.30 147.33 291.63 
 9.0-2-30-4
      1. Gayle C.H         0  [Rpi:37.23]  (Avg:40.06 - +40.06)
      4. Kallis J.H        2  [Rpi:36.70]  (Avg:45.28 - +43.28)
      5. Lara B.C          0  [Rpi:36.00]  (Avg:40.49 - +40.49)
      7. Dravid R         16  [Rpi:34.37]  (Avg:39.50 - +23.50)

10.Broad S.C.J     2008 2754 Eng-Saf  5   5  146.71 142.15 288.86  
10.0-3-23-5
      1. Smith G.C         9  [Rpi:38.14]  (Avg:40.89 - +31.89)
      2. Gibbs H.H        10  [Rpi:33.63]  (Avg:36.18 - +26.18)
      3. Kallis J.H        6  [Rpi:36.70]  (Avg:45.28 - +39.28)
      5. Duminy J.P        8  [Rpi:26.39]  (Avg:35.57 - +27.57)
      7. Botha J           1  [Rpi:11.85]  (Avg:18.23 - +17.23)

11.Joshi S.B       1999 1504 Ind-Saf  5   5  145.59 140.64 286.23  
10.0-6- 6-5
      1. Dippenaar H.H    17  [Rpi:36.01]  (Avg:42.23 - +25.23)
      2. Gibbs H.H        18  [Rpi:33.63]  (Avg:36.18 - +18.18)
      5. Cronje W.J        2  [Rpi:31.80]  (Avg:38.65 - +36.65)
      7. Rhodes J.N        1  [Rpi:26.98]  (Avg:35.12 - +34.12)
      8. Pollock S.M       0  [Rpi:17.17]  (Avg:26.46 - +26.46)

12.Harmison S.J    2005 2251 Eng-Aus  5   4  176.09 106.75 282.84 
10.0-0-33-5 
      1. Gilchrist A.C    26  [Rpi:34.48]  (Avg:35.89 - + 9.89)
      2. Hayden M.L       31  [Rpi:39.57]  (Avg:43.81 - +12.81)
      3. Ponting R.T       0  [Rpi:38.06]  (Avg:43.24 - +43.24)
      4. Martyn D.R        0  [Rpi:29.37]  (Avg:40.81 - +40.81)
      6. Hussey M.E.K     84  [Rpi:34.61]  (Avg:57.14)

13.Imran Khan      1985 0325 Pak-Ind  5   5  137.69 144.48 282.17
10.0-2-14-6 
      1. Shastri R.J       0  [Rpi:24.28]  (Avg:29.05 - +29.05)
      2. Srikkanth K       6  [Rpi:28.22]  (Avg:29.02 - +23.02)
      4. Vengsarkar D.B    1  [Rpi:29.23]  (Avg:34.73 - +33.73)
      5. Gavaskar S.M      2  [Rpi:30.31]  (Avg:35.14 - +33.14)
      6. Amarnath M        5  [Rpi:25.65]  (Avg:30.54 - +25.54)

Chaminda Vaas gets into second place with figures somewhat similar to Waqar Younis. Seven top-order wickets, all well below their batting average. Even though this was against Zimbabwe, readers should remember that this Zimbabwe team was not bad, with decent averages and having Heath Streak bat at no.8.

I would personally place Aaqib Javed's performance at par with Vaas. Seven top-order wickets and only Sanjay Manjrekar managing to go past his bowling average. The hat-trick to boot.

Pedro Collins is the highest placed five-wicket bowler in this table. Five top-order Australian wickets, all below their averages. Shane Bond's is somewhat similar. It is only the fact that two of Bond's scalps are of lesser batsmen (Brad Hogg and Ian Harvey) which has pushed him below Collins.

The best-placed Indian bowler is the unheralded Sunil Joshi. His collection of five top South African batsmen, all below their averages is truly outstanding. The best placed Australian bowler is Brett Lee whose collection of four (yes, only four) ICC XI scalps has pushed him into the Top 10. But then the batsmen are Chris Gayle, Jacques Kallis, Brian Lara and Rahul Dravid.

Just for interest, let me go back to the two innspells at the top. McGrath's 7 for 15 is placed in 399th position while Mullally's 4 for 18 is placed in 33rd position. I am sure most people would agree with these placings. Let me add that the incomparable McGrath has seven innspells placed in this table ahead of this particular one (and eight below).

To view the complete list please click here.

Comments (32)

November 7, 2008

A summary of Test cricket by period (Part 2)

Posted by Ananth Narayanan at in Test cricket

	The numbers of catches taken by a wicketkeeper per Test has doubled from what it was in the Pre-World War One days © Getty Images

In the first part we saw the way the numbers related to Matches, Innings, Results, Partnerships and Extras have changed over the 130 years of Test cricket. In this second part we will cover Batting, Bowling, Keeping and Dismissals.

Let me emphasise that some of this information can be garnered using Cricinfo's excellent Statsguru. Mine will offer a different perspective and is a summarised analysis using my database.

Batting will be analysed by right- and left-hand batsmen. Bowling will be analysed by pace and spin bowling. All dismissals would be analysed. As far as the keepers are concerned, byes have already been analysed in Part 1. Here the two wicketkeeper dismissals would be covered.

1. Batting analysis 1 (average - left & right)

Period     R-Avg  L-Avg  T-Avg

Pre-WW1    22.73  25.33  23.06
WW1-WW2    31.68  29.73  31.40
40s-50s    28.44  30.98  28.81
1960s      29.72  35.37  30.82
1970s      30.29  32.86  30.79
1980s      29.65  33.61  30.44
1990s      28.21  33.32  29.45
2000s      28.99  37.89  31.68

All Tests  28.77  34.19  29.92

All->1000R 37.34 39.46 37.90

First the period changes. After a relatively difficult first period, the other seven periods have seen very little variations in batting average. The current decade has seen the best batting average of all times. This is almost 5% above the all-test average.

However the real shock comes when we see the right and left-hand figures. Barring a single period (the period in between the World Wars - no doubt caused by Bradman & Co), left-handers have consistently averaged between 10 and 30% more than the right-handers. Across all Tests there is a 15% variance. Look at the current decade. Left-handers have averaged nearly 30% more than the right-handers. I have no explanations. The readers will certainly have a few.

This is borne out by the following facts. This may explain "how" but not "why".

1. As per my records, 440 players have batted left-handed. This, out of 2525 players. A frequency of approximately one in six.
2. In the list of top 25 batting averages, there are seven left-hand batsmen. This is a much higher frequency of one in every 3.5. It explains why left-handers have a much better average. Extending it further, 107 out of 400 top averaging batsmen are left-handed. One in four!
3. In the list of top 25 run-scorers, there are eight left-hand batsmen. This is a much higher frequency of one in every three. They not only average more but score more also, it seems. Extending it further, 101 out of 400 top-scoring batsmen are left handed. Again, one in four.

I have not done any analysis on centuries since I strongly feel a century is only a personal milestone and does nothing more for the team, other than, of course the 100th run. A 99 will serve the team as much as a 100. There is a lot of unnecessary hype over a century. At least I will ignore this measure.

It can be clearly seen that the difference between Right and Left handers is less pronounced when I do a separate analysis of only batsmen who have scored greater than 1000 runs, thus clearly excluding the real tail-enders. Many thanks to Hariharan Sriram's observation.

To view the complete table, click here.

2. Bowling analysis 1 (average - pace & spin)

Period    P-Avg  S-Avg  T-Avg

Pre-WW1   23.24  25.00  24.02
WW1-WW2   32.15  33.10  32.56
40s-50s   28.78  31.20  29.96
1960s     30.41  34.47  32.11
1970s     30.19  35.01  31.94
1980s     29.93  37.71  32.07
1990s     29.84  35.62  31.51
2000s     32.94  35.43  33.76

All Tests 30.27  33.72  31.51

All->100w 26.75  29.25  27.67

The bowling average is analysed between pace and spin. First the period analysis. Barring the first period and the 1940s-1950s (just barely) the bowling average has been in excess of 30. The all-Test average is still higher at 31.51.

Now the split between pace and spin. The average for pace is about 5% below the all-Test average and 10% below the spin average. This is as expected and does not offer any surprises.

Since this involves every wicket taken, I have done an alternate measure. This is to consider the averages only for bowlers who have taken 100 wickets and more. For obvious reasons this can be done at a total level only and not by period.

These figures are considerably (about 10%) below the all-bowler averages. Pace averages 26.25 while spinners average 29.25, both very reasonable figures.
To view the complete table, click here.

3. Bowling analysis 2 (strike-rate - pace & spin)

Period   P-S/R  S-S/R  T-S/R

Pre-WW1   55.2   57.0   56.0
WW1-WW2   75.6   76.7   76.0
40s-50s   75.6   82.7   79.1
1960s     72.2   92.7   80.8
1970s     68.0   89.7   75.9
1980s     63.0   90.8   70.6
1990s     63.2   82.0   68.6
2000s     62.3   72.9   65.8

All Tests 65.6   80.4   70.9

All->100w 58.9   73.1   64.1

The strike-rates follow a similar pattern to the bowling averages. The pace bowlers strike at a frequency which is about 20% below the spinners. This applies to the bowlers who have captured more than 100 wickets also.
To view the complete table, click here.

4. Bowling analysis 3 (runs per over - pace & spin)

Period   P-Rpo  S-Rpo  T-Rpo

Pre-WW1   2.52   2.63   2.57
WW1-WW2   2.55   2.59   2.57
4os-50s   2.28   2.26   2.27
1960s     2.53   2.23   2.38
1970s     2.66   2.34   2.53
1980s     2.85   2.49   2.72
1990s     2.83   2.61   2.76
2000s     3.17   2.92   3.08

All Tests 2.77   2.52   2.67

All->100w 2.73   2.40   2.59

The spinners come into their own in the runs per over measure. They are about 10-15% more economical. The surprise is the figures do not show much variation across the periods, the first one included. Note also the current decade. The bowlers have become more expensive. Even the spinners are going at nearly three runs per over.
To view the complete table, click here.

Now let us analyse the dismissals effected.

5. Dismissals analysis 1 (bowled - % and per match)

Period    Bowled  Wkts  % of Tot Bow/Mtch

Pre-WW1     1639  4301     38.1    12.2
WW1-WW2     1205  3998     30.1     8.6
40s-50s     1774  6089     29.1     8.5
1960s       1449  5546     26.1     7.8
1970s       1268  5866     21.6     6.4
1980s       1489  7504     19.8     5.6
1990s       1786 10203     17.5     5.1
2000s       2084 12278     17.0     5.1

All Tests  12694 55785     22.8     6.7

Major surprises here. The number of bowled wickets was as high as 38.1 during the first period and then fell only to around 30% during the next two periods. Now it stands at a low 17%, around one in six.

To what can this be attributed? Improvement in technique, change in bowling line, more lbws et al.

6. Dismissals analysis 2 (lbw - % and per match)

Period    Lbw    Wkts  % of Tot  Lbw/Mtch

Pre-WW1      286  4301      6.6     2.1
WW1-WW2      509  3998     12.7     3.6
40s-50s      821  6089     13.5     3.9
1960s        661  5546     11.9     3.6
1970s        716  5866     12.2     3.6
1980s       1201  7504     16.0     4.5
1990s       1755 10203     17.2     5.1
2000s       2178 12278     17.7     5.3

All Tests   8127 55785     14.6     4.3

Here it has happened the other way. During the first period, only one in 16 were lbws. Now it is one in six. Again, why? Changes in lbw laws, umpires being more liberal in giving lbw decisions, reverse-swing (?) et al.

7. Dismissals analysis 3 (caught - % and per match)

Period    Ct Others Wkts % of Tot Ct/Mtch

Pre-WW1     1809  4301     42.1    13.5
WW1-WW2     1639  3998     41.0    11.7
40s-50s     2332  6089     38.3    11.2
1960s       2325  5546     41.9    12.5
1970s       2630  5866     44.8    13.4
1980s       3154  7504     42.0    11.8
1990s       4323 10203     42.4    12.5
2000s       5314 12278     43.3    12.9

All Tests  23526 55785     42.2    12.4

These are the non-wicketkeeper catches and have remained fairly static across the years. No information is available on where the catches were taken. As such I will not be able to separate the slip/gully cathes. No doubt these would be on the increase during the later years.

8. Dismissals analysis 4 (stumped - % and per match)

Period    Stumped  Wkts  % of Tot  St/Mtch

Pre-WW1      152  4301      3.5     1.1
WW1-WW2      158  3998      4.0     1.1
40s-50s      207  6089      3.4     1.0
1960s        106  5546      1.9     0.6
1970s         99  5866      1.7     0.5
1980s        109  7504      1.5     0.4
1990s        148 10203      1.5     0.4
2000s        222 12278      1.8     0.5

All Tests   1201 55785      2.2     0.6

The percentage of stumpings started at quite a high value and has now come down to less than 2%. Note that it takes an average of two matches to get a stumping now. Probably there is a lot of stand and swat rather than use one's feet and move out.

9. Dismissals analysis 5 (Ct by Wk - % and per match)

Period   Ct by Wk Wkts  % of Tot CWk/Mtch

Pre-WW1      373  4301      8.7     2.8
WW1-WW2      432  3998     10.8     3.1
40s-50s      859  6089     14.1     4.1
1960s        920  5546     16.6     4.9
1970s       1053  5866     18.0     5.3
1980s       1406  7504     18.7     5.3
1990s       2032 10203     19.9     5.9
2000s       2308 12278     18.8     5.6

All Tests   9383 55785     16.8     5.0

As expected this figure has more than doubled from the first to last period. This is now a very effective manner of dismissal. More than one in six. The drop in bowled has indicated bowlers now try and get the edges. Consequently the keeper comes in more often. Without entering into the bowler-keeper argument again, let me now say most of the credit should go to the bowler, with some credit going to the keeper, especially for the difficult catches.

10. Dismissals analysis 6 (run-outs - % and per match)

Period   Runouts  Wkts   % of Tot  RO/Mtch

Pre-WW1     179   4301      4.2     1.3 
WW1-WW2     147   3998      3.7     1.1 
40s-50s     241   6089      4.0     1.2 
1960s       232   5546      4.2     1.2 
1970s       218   5866      3.7     1.1 
1980s       258   7504      3.4     1.0 
1990s       359  10203      3.5     1.0 
2000s       419  12278      3.4     1.0 

All Tests   2053 55785      3.7     1.1 

There seems to be a slight drop in the percentage of run-outs over the years. Is there a possible reason that with the advent of the third umpire, in both run-out and Stumping cases, the batsman gets the benefit of technology and marginal decisions which were given with the naked eye are now not given?

I had made an offer that all this information would be available to the readers. This is going to take some time since I am preparing a comprehensive XL sheet with all the parameters for easier access and retrieval. I will make this available at a later date by providing a suitable link.

Comments (18)

November 1, 2008

A summary of Test cricket by period (Part 1)

Posted by Ananth Narayanan at in Test cricket

	Thanks largely to the Australians, the run-rate and result percentage have gone up significantly in Tests since 2000 © Getty Images

This is a major attempt to generate a set of measures for Test Cricket by period. The purpose is two-fold. The first is to look at the way the figures change over the years, letting us get a handle on the evolution of the game. The second is to establish a criteria for adjusting any analysis we do which spans across the years. Many a time have I found myself in a situation needing to adjust a particular period's figures and I have re-invented the wheel every time. Now I hope to have a set of figures which can be used as a ready reckoner for such adjustments. Readers who do similar analysis are welcome to use these figures.

Readers should also realize that after I thought of this complex topic, I have put in nearly a month's work, on and off. into preparing this complicated analysis. I would appreciate avoiding of a superficial read and flippant off-the-cuff comments.

The analysis covers various aspects of Test Cricket. Since the article has become too long, it has been split into two parts. The first part covers Matches, Innings, Results, Partnerships and Extras. The second part covers Batting, Bowling, Keeping and Dismissals.

To start with let me divide the 130 years into 8 periods, taking into account the evolution of the game, years and the number of Tests played. The following are the periods.

1. 1877 - 1914  (Pre World war 1)
2. 1920 - 1939  (In between the two World Wars)
3. 1946 - 1959  (1940s & 1950s)
4. 1960 - 1969  (1960s)
5. 1970 - 1979  (1970s)
6. 1980 - 1989  (1980s)
7. 1990 - 1999  (1990s)
8. 2000 - 2008  (2000s)

These are logical and reasonably evenly spaced periods. Anything more will result in too many periods with consequent difficulty in following the tables and anything less will telescope multiple differing periods into one and we will lose out in analysis.

Even the formatting of the article required a lot of thinking. I tried having the periods horizontally. It was difficult to read. There was also the need to present the core data such as runs, wickets, balls, wickets et al to the readers. So I adopted a dual presentation approach. In the main body of the article I show the calculated measures in a grouped form and the base core data in the supporting pages. That way all the information is shown and the main report is not cluttered. I have also avoided showing the variance of each period figure to the all-Test averages to avoid showing too many numbers. That will indeed be the key figure to make adjustments.

Let us get into the analysis results.

First the base Match analysis.

1. Match analysis 1 (Balls/Runs/Wkts per match)

Period     Mats   B/M  R/M  W/M

Pre-WW1     134  1799  812 33.6 
WW1-WW2     140  2171  976 29.9 
40s-50s     209  2303  912 30.4 
1960s       186  2409 1003 31.1 
1970s       197  2259 1014 31.0 
1980s       267  1985  949 29.2 
1990s       347  2018  963 30.5 
2000s       409  1967 1046 31.1 

All Tests  1889  2093  973 30.7 

During the first period, timeless Tests and 3-day Tests alternated. Later 3-day, 4-day, 5-day, 6-day and timeless Tests were played through the years until 1979, from which year almost all the 1000+ tests have been played over 5 days. As recently as 1973, 4-days tests were played between New Zealand and Pakistan. Please remember these pertinent facts while perusing this table.

Surprisingly the Balls per match figure during the first period has been quite high despite the number of 3-day tests. This, despite 4-ball overs during most of these years requiring more change over time. During 1960s the balls per match is the highest. More than the match days, I feel this is certainly a result of lot more drawn matches during this period and to a lesser extent the 1970s.

The runs per match is the highest during the current decade and the lowest during the first period when batting was indeed difficult. The relatively high 1960s and 1970s figure must no doubt be due to the number of drawn matches.

More Wickets per match fell during the first period. Barring this period the figure has remained fairly static.

To view the complete table please click here.

2. Match analysis 2 (Runs/Wkt, Runs/Over)

Period      RpO    RpW 

Pre-WW1    2.71   24.2 
WW1-WW2    2.70   32.7 
40s-50s    2.37   29.9 
1960s      2.50   32.2 
1970s      2.69   32.7 
1980s      2.87   32.5 
1990s      2.87   31.6 
2000s      3.19   33.7 

All Tests  2.79   31.7 

The RpO figure is the most important measure we have seen until now. It has varied quite significantly over the years. Surprisingly the Rpo figure was quite high during the first two periods despite the pitches. It fell drastically during the post-112 period, certainly due to a combination of accurate bowling and defensive batting and attitudes. The figure picked up later and has crossed the key value of 3.0 for the current decade, where it is 14% higher than the all-test average. This has been the result of most teams, led by Australia, scoring quickly in a bid to go for a result.

There have been 4/5/8 ball overs at different times in Test cricket, however all RpO figures have been standardized to 6 bpo for this table.

Barring the first period the Runs per wicket figure has remained fairly stable. The figure is highest during current decades. For most of the periods the RpW figure has exceeded 30.

To view the complete table please click here.

3. Inns Analysis (Runs per completed inns, Low and high scores)

Period      R/CI  I<100   I>500 

Pre-WW1     231  12.71%   2.63% 
WW1-WW2     289   3.14%   6.68% 
40s-50s     256   6.46%   6.79% 
1960s       284   1.93%   5.80% 
1970s       276   2.62%   5.24% 
1980s       278   2.23%   5.64% 
1990s       269   1.71%   5.47% 
2000s       282   3.42%   9.87% 

All Tests   272   3.84%   6.49% 

The average completed innings size has followed the pattern. Quite low (15% below all-Test average) during the first period and then around the all-Test average mark subsequently, barring the low-scoring 40s-50s period..

During the first period, there was an extraordinarily high instances of sub-100 innings. Over 12.5% of the innings completed (53 out of 494) were below 100. The second period was a major drop in the sub-100 innings. However the figure almost doubled during the 40s-50s. Then it has settled down. The 1990s had the lowest figure. Surprisingly the current decade's is double that of the previous decade. There have been 36 such instances out of 1052 completed innings.

I was so intrigued by this sudden escalation that I decided to make a detailed study. As expected the culprits were Bangladesh with 8 sub-100 scores and Zimbabwe with 7. However the situation has been worsened by the West Indian decline. They have had 5 sub-100 scores. At the other end, Australia and South Africa have had one instance each.

Predictably there were very few 500+ innings during the first period. Then the % stabilized to the all-Test average during the next 6 periods. There has been a noticeable increase during the current decade with 147 of the 1489 innings crossing 500. Remember that these are not just completed innings but all innings.

Australia leads with 28 500+ scores while India is close with 24. At the other end Zimbabwe has only 2 scores in excess of 500 while Bangladesh has not crossed 500.

The paradoxical current decade situation of high number of 500+ scores and high number of sub-100 scores is a pointer to the wide gap between teams as well as the drive to achieve results.

To view the complete table please click here.

4. Partnerships analysis (Opening & Last 3 wkts)

Period     Open OP100+ OPSub10 Last3W

Pre-WW1    29.8   5.9%   37.2%  47.3
WW1-WW2    40.5  11.3%   28.1%  47.5
4os-50s    36.3   8.1%   27.4%  40.7
1960s      38.2   7.5%   24.9%  49.0
1970s      38.3   8.0%   27.0%  47.5
1980s      34.2   6.4%   27.5%  50.0
1990s      35.7   8.2%   30.3%  48.2
2000s      39.0   8.9%   28.7%  49.8 

All Tests  36.7   8.1%   28.7%  47.8

This is an analysis of two types of partnerships. The first wicket partnership is the most important one since it lays the foundation for the innings. The average first-wicket score has been reasonably scattered around the all-Test average of 36.7 barring the first period when it fell below 30. In between the wars the partnership average went past 40, possibly owing to the strong opening partnerships of England and Australia.

Even though I am not a fan of measuring quality through individual 100s (I always treat the 100th run as nothing more than the run(s) scored around the 99 mark), a 100 partnership is more significant since it delivers a psychological blow for the team. A fairly low number of partnerships during the first period crossed 100. Surprisingly this was followed by a doubling during the next period with over 10% of the partnerships crossing 100 (56 out of 494). There has been a recent increase during the current decade, also at a good scoring rate.

The next is a measure of opening failures. These are the sub-10 (single digit) partnerships. This includes only instances where the first wicket has fallen. During the early days, especially during the first period, well over a third of the partnerships have been failures. This figure improved over the years but has picked up now and we are back to a fairly high (either side of) 30% figure. It may have to do with the attacking attitude of the opening batsmen nowadays. I could have done a "opener dismissed at 0" analysis. However I feel that a single digit partnership is a failure and a 0 is no worse than a 5 or 9.

The next measure is the number of runs added for the last 3 wickets. This has not varied much barring the 40s-50s when it fell to around 40. For the current decade the value is around 50, indicating a more committed late order batting set-up with better techniques and application.

To view the complete table please click here.

5. Extras Analysis - per 1000 balls (Extras/Byes/LegByes/NoBalls/Wides)

Period     E/Tb B/Tb L/Tb N/Tb W/Tb

Pre-WW1    22.6 12.8  6.5  2.3  1.0 
WW1-WW2    21.2  9.3  8.6  2.8  0.5 
40s-50s    16.8  7.6  6.3  2.3  0.5 
1960s      18.9  6.6  7.3  4.4  0.5 
1970s      27.9  6.5  9.2 11.3  1.0 
1980s      32.0  6.0 11.8 12.5  1.7 
1990s      33.1  5.9 12.4 13.4  1.4 
2000s      34.0  6.9 11.9 12.2  2.9 

All Tests  27.4  7.1  9.9  8.9  1.4

All the extras calculations have been done per 1000 balls. This is just a convenient measure and is to be used only as a relative measure for comparison. All the extras components have been analyzed.

The number of Extras per Tb has increased over the years and the current decade figure is the highest, about 20% higher than the all-Tests average.

The Byes per Tb started at a high figure and now stands around the all-Test average. Have the keepers become that much better?

Leg Byes follows the reverse pattern. Starting at a low level it is now at a fairly high level.

No Balls per Tb have increased significantly. They were extremely low during the first 70 years and suddenly zoomed up during the 1970s and have remained there. Possibly the changing of the No ball rule during the 1960s must have contributed to this increase.

Wides per Tb have also increased during the current decade, almost double of the all-Test average and the previous period of value. Possibly the bowlers are striving for too much. May also be that the unmpires, no doubt influenced by the ODI experience, are calling wides more often now.

The increase in LB/Nb/Wides per Tb has more than odffset the drop in Byes per Tb and this has resulted in the overall increase in Extras per Tb.

To view the complete table please click here.

6. Results Analysis (Results/HomeWins/AwayWins)

Period     Res% HW % AW % Dr %

Pre-WW1    82.1 44.0 38.1 17.9
WW1-WW2    62.9 35.7 27.1 37.1
40s-50s    65.1 36.8 28.2 34.9
1960s      52.2 30.6 21.5 47.8
1970s      57.4 35.0 22.3 42.6
1980s      53.9 32.6 21.3 46.1
1990s      64.3 40.9 23.3 35.7
2000s      77.0 46.2 30.8 23.0

All Tests  64.9 38.6 26.3 35.1

This is a very interesting table. The overall Results % started at an incredible 82+ value during the first period, dropped to a low 50+% during the miserable 1960s and has risen again now to a near-80% value. Australia might be stuttering now. However they are the team which started the equivalent of "total cricket", hard, attacking and always striving for results. Due credit should be given to them for changing the face of Test cricket, especially after the miserable 1960s-1980s periods.

A similar pattern emerges in the Home wins measure. The first and last periods have high Home wins % values.

The best period for Away wins was the first one when the 3 month sea travel seemed to have done something good since 38% of the matches finished with Away wins. This value has since dropped and stood at its lowest during the 1960s when "Not to lose" was the motto. The value has picked up significantly during the current decade with over 30% Away wins.

The Draws % shows low values during the first and last periods. The most boring period in Test history was during 1960s when nearly half of the matches ended in draws, not all of them the exciting ones.

To view the complete table please click here.

The second part of the article will follow in a week's time covering the Batting, Bowling, Keeping and Dismissals aspects. I will also try and do some changes based on any significant comments. I invite readers' comments, both on these areas and the ones being analyzed next week. At the end of the second part, if readers so desire, I will also make available an XL sheet containing all the measures analysed, including % variances to the all-Test averages.

Comments (27)