Ian Botham: as close as you can get to the most balanced allrounder © Getty Images

If my continuum does exist, then it should be possible to quantify each player’s position along this line, and to determine who the “perfectly balanced” allrounders have been in the game’s history.

Concerning myself with just Test cricket, I started with two extremes: the “purest” batsman was surely Brian Lara, who scored 11,953 runs in 131 Tests, but failed to take a wicket, the only scorer of 10,000 runs to do so. At the other end of the scale, we have South Africa’s Mfuneko Ngam, who was only trusted with the bat once in his three Tests, scoring 0 not out, but was good enough as a bowler to take 11 wickets.

Of the 2551 Test players at the time of writing, 1085 failed either to score a run or take a wicket, and these may be regarded as our specialist players (either batsmen or bowlers), leaving 1467 players who can theoretically be regarded to some degree as allrounders. Readers may not be convinced of the allround credentials of Rahul Dravid, who has one wicket to go along with his 10,823 runs, and so we need to weed out these genuine batting specialists who by some freakish circumstance, have ended up with a small number of wickets.

Similarly, at the other end, we cannot seriously regard the likes of England’s Bill Bowes (68 wickets) as a bowling allrounder, even though he scored 28 runs in 15 Tests, so from that end, we also need to establish a point beyond which a player can be regarded as a bowling specialist only, even though he may have scored the odd run here and there.

It will probably be obvious by now that the simplest (and perhaps most effective) way of establishing our continuum is to divide the number of runs a player has scored by the wickets he has taken. Using our two extremes, Dravid comes out with an allround index of 10823, while Bowes’ is 0.41. The index for true allrounders, of course, lies within a much a narrower range, and with absolutely no theoretical basis for my conclusion, other than matching the results with my observations of players over many years, it seems that the figure of 14 is the point of equilibrium, where a player’s batting is perfectly balanced with his bowling.

In fact no-one with 20 Tests under their belt has an index of exactly 14, but some come near. Of the megastars in the game’s history, Ian Botham (13.58) comes the closest, while Jack Gregory (13.48), Ray Illingworth (15.05) and Chris Cairns (15.23) also seem to be extraordinarily balanced in their contributions with both bat and ball, the latter two obviously having a slight bias in favour of their batting. The closest with a 20-Test minimum is the little remembered nineteeth-century allrounder from England, William Barnes (14.22). The following table lists those whose indices lie in between 13 and 15:

Index	player	        M	runs	wkts
13.02	Mankad, MH	44	2109	162
13.12	Boje, 	N	43	1312	100
13.39	Hirst, GH	24	790	59
13.48	Gregory, JM	24	1146	85
13.58	Botham, IT	102	5200	383
14.22	Barnes, W	21	725	51
14.37	Nasim-ul-Ghani	29	747	52
14.41	Ratnayeke, JR	22	807	56
14.68	Madan Lal, S	39	1042	71

How far can we deviate from this balanced centre before we can no longer call the player an allrounder? At the bowling end, the figure appears to be around 7. Wasim Akram comes in on exactly that figure, while Dominic Cork (6.60) and Ray Lindwall (6.59) just had too much fire-power with the ball compared to their output as batsmen to be considered genuine allrounders. Alan Davidson (7.14) and Richard Hadlee (7.46) are rightly included, as is the rapidly-improving Mitchell Johnson (7.38).

Index	player	         M	runs	wkts
6.53	Wickramasinghe	40	555	85
6.59	Lindwall, RR	61	1502	228
6.60	Cork, DG	37	864	131
6.67	DeFreitas, PAJ	44	934	140
6.80	Schwarz, RO	20	374	55
6.91	Briggs, J	33	815	118
7.00	Wasim Akram	104	2898	414
7.00	Edmonds, PH	51	875	125
7.14	Cairns, BL	43	928	130
7.14	Davidson, AK	44	1328	186
7.25	Hadlee, RJ	86	3124	431
7.38	Johnson, MG	21	694	94
7.46	Hadlee, DR	26	530	71

At the other end, we probably need to wander much further from our centre to capture all those who we might consider batting allrounders. Extending the index from 14 to 100 allows the inclusion of Jeremy Coney (98.81), but excludes Doug Walters (109.33), which might be considered fair enough. Wally Hammond (87.34), Scott Styris (86.37) and Chris Gayle (77.49) are also included.

Index	player	         M	runs	wkts
71.15	Jayasuriya, ST	110	6973	98
74.94	Hathurusingha 	26	1274	17
75.47	Shoaib Malik	23	1132	15
76.33	McCabe, SJ	39	2748	36
77.49	Gayle, CH	82	5502	71
79.30	Styris, SB	29	1586	20
82.00	Ryder, J	20	1394	17
86.37	Cronje, WJ	68	3714	43
87.34	Hammond, WR	85	7249	83
92.20	Astle, NJ	81	4702	51
98.81	Coney, JV	52	2668	27
102.17	Wyatt, RES	40	1839	18
103.74	Umrigar, PR	59	3631	35
109.33	Walters, KD	74	5357	49
109.60	Hazare, VS	30	2192	20

Finally, there happen to be exactly 50 players whose indices fall in between 10 and 20 – these are the players who I consider to be closest to being perfectly balanced in their allround contributions.

Index	player	        M	runs	wkts
10.52	Imran Khan	88	3807	362
10.59	Mohd Rafique	33	1059	100
10.67	Tapash Baisya	21	384	36
10.95	Boyce, KD	21	657	60
10.99	Vettori, DL	92	3220	293
11.05	Pathan, IK	29	1105	100
11.60	Knight, BR	29	812	70
11.63	Harper, RA	25	535	46
11.63	MacGibbon, AR	26	814	70
11.65	Emburey, JE	64	1713	147
11.88	Lewis, CC	32	1105	93
11.94	Intikhab Alam	47	1493	125
11.99	Strang, PA	24	839	70
12.02	Giffen, G	31	1238	103
12.09	Kapil Dev, N	131	5248	434
12.15	O'Keeffe, KJ	24	644	53
12.58	Dharmasena 	31	868	69
13.02	Mankad, MH	44	2109	162
13.12	Boje, 	N	43	1312	100
13.39	Hirst, GH	24	790	59
13.48	Gregory, JM	24	1146	85
13.58	Botham, IT	102	5200	383
14.22	Barnes, W	21	725	51
14.37	Nasim-ul-Ghani	29	747	52
14.41	Ratnayeke, JR	22	807	56
14.68	Madan Lal, S	39	1042	71
15.05	Illingworth, R	61	1836	122
15.06	Holford, DAJ	24	768	51
15.23	Cairns, CL	62	3320	218
16.00	Patel, DN	37	1200	75
16.03	Durani, SA	29	1202	75
16.07	Nadkarni, RG	41	1414	88
16.31	Brown, FR	22	734	45
16.50	Noble, MA	42	1997	121
16.67	Prabhakar, M	39	1600	96
16.72	Flintoff, A	75	3645	218
16.89	Hall, AJ	21	760	45
16.97	Sinclair, JH	25	1069	63
17.32	Julien, BD	24	866	50
17.35	Bailey, TE	61	2290	132
17.40	Miller, KR	55	2958	170
17.66	Binny, RMH	27	830	47
17.83	White, C	30	1052	59
18.31	Rhodes, W	58	2325	127
18.98	Ulyett, G	25	949	50
19.46	Abdul Razzaq	46	1946	100
19.51	Amarnath, L	24	878	45
19.58	Hopkins, AJY	20	509	26
19.62	Atkinson, DStE	22	922	47
19.82	Phadkar, DG	31	1229	62

So there we have it: a classification of players into five groups, Bowlers (Indices 0 to 7), Bowling Allrounders (7 to 10), Balanced Allrounders (10 to 20), Batting Allrounders (20 to 100) and Batsmen (above 100). These boundaries are purely subjective, and will no doubt promote some comment – but don’t forget, this is NOT an analysis of who the BEST allrounders are!

Click here for the full list.

	Brendon McCullum: The leading run-scorer in Twenty20 internationals © Getty Images

Given below are some interesting facts. Detailed tables for these can be viewed using Cricinfo's Statistics section.

1. McCullum is the leading run-scorer with 582 runs.
2. Symonds has the highest strike rate amongst batsman who have scored 100 runs. He has a strike rate of 169.35 while scoring 337 runs.
3. Jayasuriya has secured 5 MOM awards.
4. Umar Gul has captured the maximum wickets, 24 in all.
5. Ray Price (Zimbabwe) has the best economy rates among bowlers who have bowled 10 overs. His economy rate is 3.25.
6. Gayle is the only batsman to have scored a century. His score was 117.
7. Yuvraj's innings of 58 in 16 balls is the fastest in T20s.
8. Gillespie (New Zealand) has the best bowling figures, 2.5-0-7-4.
9. Cusack (Ireland) has the most accurate bowling analysis in T20s, 3.0-1-3-2.
10. Anderson (England) has the most expensive bowling T20 bowling spell ever, 4-0-64-1.
11. Sri Lanka has scored the highest total in T20s, 260 against Kenya.
12. Kenya, in addition to above, also has the lowest innings total against Ireland, a paltry 67.
13. South Africa chased a total of 205 made by West Indies.
14. Ireland defended a total of 43 (9 overs) against Bermuda.

For the 2007 World Cup, the significant top performers are listed below.

1. The maximum runs were scored by Hayden with 265.
2. The best Runs per Innings figure was Hayden's 44.17 in 6 innings, including 4 x 50s. 3. The best strike rate was Yuvraj Singh's 1.947 (148 runs in 76 balls).
4. Umar Gul captured the maximum wickets, having accounted for 13 dismissals.
5. The best bowling average was achieved by Chigumbura of Zimbabwe who captured 7 wickets at 7.29.
6. Vettori bowled most economically with a RPO figure of 5.33 in 24 overs.

2. A re-look at the Par Score

Sometime back I had a look at the Par Score for T20s in which I had suggested a Par Score as 165. I had increased this to 170+ for the sub-continent. I have looked at this again, only for the 25 matches of the World Cup. Looking at the 12 teams which scored 160 and above, 8 teams won defending such totals while 4 totals were chased successfully. This gives a very reasonable 66.7% winning chance and 160 can very well be taken as a Par Score for this World Cup, which will be played in England. On the other hand, increasing the Par Score to 165 gives the teams a chance to win in 7 out of 8 (87.5%). So I would say that the Par Score should be between 160-165. 160 should be sufficient, the few extra runs increase the chances of winning significantly.

3. T20-Intls: Analysis of 20-over runs conceded and wickets captured

Ov  Num    Runs Max   Avge    SD   SEM   Wkts   Avge    SD   SEM
 # Overs

 1 174.0   1004  19   5.77   3.47  0.26    40   0.23   0.46  0.03
 2 174.0   1199  25   6.89   4.69  0.36    42   0.24   0.49  0.04
 3 174.0   1333  18   7.66   4.52  0.34    57   0.33   0.56  0.04
 4 174.0   1319  20   7.58   4.82  0.37    54   0.31   0.51  0.04
 5 174.0   1466  22   8.43   4.86  0.37    37   0.21   0.46  0.04
 6 173.5   1376  21   7.92   4.83  0.37    67   0.39   0.58  0.04
 7 173.0   1137  22   6.57   3.94  0.30    47   0.27   0.48  0.04
 8 172.4   1163  24   6.74   3.95  0.30    49   0.28   0.50  0.04
 9 172.0   1077  19   6.26   3.61  0.28    49   0.28   0.52  0.04
10 169.0   1157  20   6.85   3.92  0.30    45   0.27   0.52  0.04
11 166.5   1090  19   6.53   3.65  0.28    60   0.36   0.54  0.04
12 163.5   1191  18   7.27   4.28  0.33    48   0.29   0.49  0.04
13 163.0   1234  25   7.57   4.64  0.36    52   0.32   0.53  0.04
14 161.5   1099  21   6.79   4.07  0.32    63   0.39   0.57  0.04
15 157.2   1181  24   7.51   4.45  0.35    63   0.40   0.53  0.04
16 155.5   1253  26   8.04   5.32  0.43    58   0.37   0.59  0.05
17 152.1   1280  21   8.41   5.04  0.41    71   0.47   0.66  0.05
18 147.0   1145  24   7.79   4.92  0.40    70   0.48   0.57  0.05
19 132.0   1184  36   8.97   6.08  0.52    76   0.58   0.71  0.06
20 109.3   1052  21   9.61   4.96  0.45   105   0.96   0.84  0.08

a. There is a spurt in the second over, indicating that the first over was used to get the bearings. There is marked spurt in the 5th over, possibly because the batsmen take couple of overs to familiarize themselves and cut loose in anticipation of the removal of the fielding restrictions.

b. There seems to be no significant change between the 10th and 11th over since there is no artificial commercial break after the 10th over.

c. There seems to be a steady move in the later overs. However the 14th over shows an unexpected dip. Why, I cannot tell.

d. There is a major move in wickets lost between 5th and 6th overs, a clear case of batsmen chancing their arms. The significant increase in the 20th over is again understandable.

4. T20-Intls: Comparison of 20-over figures between First and Second inns

Ovr First Innings    Second Innings    First Inns  Second Inns
 #     Runs               Runs            Wkts         Wkts

 1 (87.0  525) 6.03  5.51 (87.0  479)   20  0.23    20  0.23
 2 (87.0  545) 6.26  7.52 (87.0  654)   26  0.30    16  0.18
 3 (87.0  688) 7.91  7.41 (87.0  645)   24  0.28    33  0.38
 4 (87.0  675) 7.76  7.40 (87.0  644)   29  0.33    25  0.29
 5 (87.0  685) 7.87  8.98 (87.0  781)   19  0.22    18  0.21
 6 (87.0  673) 7.74  8.10 (86.5  703)   31  0.36    36  0.41
 7 (87.0  542) 6.23  6.92 (86.0  595)   26  0.30    21  0.24
 8 (87.0  608) 6.99  6.48 (85.4  555)   28  0.32    21  0.25
 9 (87.0  568) 6.53  5.99 (85.0  509)   24  0.28    25  0.29
10 (86.0  606) 7.05  6.64 (83.0  551)   29  0.34    16  0.19
11 (86.0  608) 7.07  5.96 (80.5  482)   32  0.37    28  0.35
12 (85.0  644) 7.58  6.94 (78.5  547)   23  0.27    25  0.32
13 (85.0  647) 7.61  7.53 (78.0  587)   24  0.28    28  0.36
14 (84.0  578) 6.88  6.69 (77.5  521)   36  0.43    27  0.35
15 (83.0  597) 7.19  7.86 (74.2  584)   36  0.43    27  0.36
16 (83.0  729) 8.78  7.19 (72.5  524)   31  0.37    27  0.37
17 (82.5  673) 8.12  8.75 (69.2  607)   45  0.54    26  0.38
18 (79.5  625) 7.83  7.74 (67.1  520)   42  0.53    28  0.42
19 (78.0  736) 9.44  8.30 (54.0  448)   53  0.68    23  0.43
20 (73.2  706) 9.63  9.57 (36.1  346)   71  0.97    34  0.94

    Total      7.50  7.29                   0.38        0.33

a. The first real difference comes in the 2nd over. For some strange reason the chasing teams have averaged 25% more than the first batting teams. Why, I cannot put my fingers on one reason.

b. Similar in the 5th over where contrary to what I would have expected, the chasing teams have outscored the first batting teams. Possibly the uncertainty of the first innings caused this. For the first 6 overs, the chasing team has an additional 2 runs (45+ against 43+). No great difference.

c. The rest of the stats show usual fluctuations other than the 19th over where the first batting team is over a run ahead of the chasing team. Yuvraj Singh's 36-run over has contributed 0.3 of this run.

d. There is no great difference in average wickets other than the over 3 (chasing team 30% more), over 10 (first batting team nearly double of chasing team) and over 19 (first batting team 35% more). The later is explainable what with the batsmen throwing their bats around in the first innings and slowing down nearing the target in the second. In addition, it is also possible that the matches are won or lost by the 19th over.

5. T20-Intls: Comparison of 20-over figures between T20s and IPL

Ov T20-Interntionals IPL-2009 matches    T20-Intls  IPL-2009
 #     Runs               Runs              Wkts       Wkts

 1 (174.0 1004) 5.77  5.55 (114.0  633)   40   0.23  38  0.33
 2 (174.0 1199) 6.89  6.73 (114.0  767)   42   0.24  33  0.29
 3 (174.0 1333) 7.66  7.20 (114.0  821)   57   0.33  26  0.23
 4 (174.0 1319) 7.58  7.73 (114.0  881)   54   0.31  26  0.23
 5 (174.0 1466) 8.43  8.10 (113.5  922)   37   0.21  31  0.27
 6 (173.5 1376) 7.92  7.98 (113.0  902)   67   0.39  33  0.29
 7 (173.0 1137) 6.57  5.66 (113.0  640)   47   0.27  30  0.27
 8 (172.4 1163) 6.74  6.65 (113.0  752)   49   0.28  17  0.15
 9 (172.0 1077) 6.26  6.88 (113.0  778)   49   0.28  27  0.24
10 (169.0 1157) 6.85  6.10 (112.2  685)   45   0.27  33  0.29
11 (166.5 1090) 6.53  6.51 (112.0  729)   60   0.36  30  0.27
12 (163.5 1191) 7.27  7.31 (112.0  819)   48   0.29  26  0.23
13 (163.0 1234) 7.57  7.23 (111.0  802)   52   0.32  27  0.24
14 (161.5 1099) 6.79  7.46 (110.1  822)   63   0.39  30  0.27
15 (157.2 1181) 7.51  7.94 (109.4  871)   63   0.40  36  0.33
16 (155.5 1253) 8.04  8.17 (105.5  865)   58   0.37  45  0.43
17 (152.1 1280) 8.41  9.15 (104.2  955)   71   0.47  43  0.41
18 (147.0 1145) 7.79  9.60 (102.2  982)   70   0.48  47  0.46
19 (132.0 1184) 8.97  8.98 ( 96.2  865)   76   0.58  44  0.46
20 (109.3 1052) 9.61 10.01 ( 82.5  829)  105   0.96  77  0.93

   Total        7.39  7.49                     0.36      0.32

a. The IPL matches have a slightly higher run-rate as well as slightly lower wickets per over also. Possibly the better quality of players?

b. Not so surprisingly the T20 and IPL have almost similar values barring one over, the 18th. IPL rate is ahead by 20%. Over 10, which had a greater significance for IPL than T20s, there is no variance at all.

c. The two opening overs have shown a much higher quantum of wickets being captured. Understandable since IPL was played in South Africa while the T20s have been played in batsmen-friendly pitches across the world. There seems to be a greater number of wickets in the 6th over in T20s than IPL indicating that in the T20s teams have opted for steadier starts but have tried to speed up just before the fielding restrictions end.

6. T20-Intls: 10 over scores - runs scored

SNo. I MtId Year Team 10Overs Final score   vs  %adv Rns Rslt

  1. 1 0013 2007 Aus 117/2 to 221/ 5 (20.0) Eng 1.89 104 Won
  2. 1 0020 2007 Win 109/0 to 205/ 6 (20.0) Saf 1.88  96 Lost
  3. 2 0014 2007 Saf 107/0 to 132/ 0 (11.3) Pak 1.23  25 Won
  4. 2 0020 2007 Saf 106/2 to 208/ 2 (17.4) Win 1.96 102 Won
  5. 1 0079 2008 Nzl 106/0 to 191/ 9 (20.0) Win 1.80  85 Won
  6. 2 0057 2008 Win 102/3 to 102/ 3 ( 9.1) Aus 1.00   0 Won
  7. 1 0027 2007 Slk 101/2 to 260/ 6 (20.0) Ken 2.57 159 Won
  8. 1 0080 2009 Aus 101/2 to 182/ 9 (20.0) Saf 1.80  81 Won
  9. 1 0011 2006 Nzl 101/2 to 162/ 8 (20.0) Slk 1.60  61 Lost
 10. 2 0047 2007 Ind 101/1 to 167/ 3 (18.1) Aus 1.65  66 Won
 11. 2 0024 2007 Bng 100/2 to 165/ 4 (18.0) Win 1.65  65 Won
...
...
...
168. 1 0021 2007 Ken  38/5 to  73/10 (16.5) Nzl 1.92  35 Lost
169. 2 0064 2008 Ire  34/2 to  72/ 6 (19.1) Ken 2.12  38 Won
170. 1 0067 2008 Ber  33/5 to  70/10 (20.0) Can 2.12  37 Lost
171. 1 0050 2007 Saf  28/7 to  58/ 8 (13.0) Win 2.07  30 Lost
172. 2 0075 2008 Can  27/4 to  75/10 (19.2) Zim 2.78  48 Lost

a. There have been quite a few instances of teams having reached 100 runs during the first 10 overs, 11 to be precise. This has been distributed over a number of teams, Pakistan and England excepted.

b. Not all teams have taken advantage of this great start. Australia and Sri Lanka have capitalized on the start very well. Couple of teams who crossed 100 in 10 overs have also lost.

c. A few teams have scored fewer than 40 runs in the first 10 overs and have lost. The only exception is the Ireland which, however, was chasing only a paltry total of 67 by Kenya.

7. T20-Intls: 10 over scores - % of runs advanced in second 10 overs

SNo. I MtId Year Team 10Overs Final score   vs  %adv Rns Rslt

  1. 1 0045 2007 Ind  60/2 to 188/ 5 (20.0) Aus 3.13 128 Won
  2. 2 0081 2009 Aus  56/2 to 161/ 4 (18.5) Saf 2.88 105 Won
  3. 2 0075 2008 Can  27/4 to  75/10 (19.2) Zim 2.78  48 Lost
  4. 1 0036 2007 Nzl  60/4 to 164/ 9 (20.0) Eng 2.73 104 Won
  5. 1 0035 2007 Pak  69/3 to 189/ 6 (20.0) Slk 2.74 120 Won
  6. 1 0051 2008 Win  48/3 to 131/ 7 (20.0) Saf 2.73  83 Lost
  7. 1 0023 2007 Aus  51/4 to 138/ 9 (20.0) Zim 2.71  87 Lost
  8. 2 0049 2007 Nzl  49/6 to 132/10 (18.3) Aus 2.69  83 Lost
  9. 1 0043 2007 Ind  57/3 to 153/ 5 (20.0) Saf 2.68  96 Won
 10. 2 0029 2007 Pak  53/4 to 141/ 7 (20.0) Ind 2.66  88 Lost
 11. 1 0081 2009 Saf  59/3 to 157/ 5 (20.0) Aus 2.66  98 Lost
 12. 1 0027 2007 Slk 101/2 to 260/ 6 (20.0) Ken 2.57 159 Won
 13. 1 0038 2007 Slk  57/3 to 147/ 5 (20.0) Bng 2.58  90 Won
 14. 1 0022 2007 Pak  67/3 to 171/ 9 (20.0) Sco 2.55 104 Won
 15. 1 0049 2007 Aus  73/3 to 186/ 6 (20.0) Nzl 2.55 113 Won
 16. 2 0059 2008 Ire  47/2 to 118/ 6 (19.5) Sco 2.51  71 Won
 17. 2 0039 2007 Saf  63/3 to 158/ 4 (19.1) Nzl 2.51  95 Won
 18. 1 0032 2007 Nzl  77/2 to 190/10 (20.0) Ind 2.47 113 Won
 19. 2 0071 2008 Zim  55/4 to 135/ 9 (20.0) Can 2.45  80 Lost
 20. 1 0008 2006 Eng  59/4 to 144/ 7 (20.0) Pak 2.44  85 Lost

a. India tripled their score at the 10-over mark, and won. They also added 128 runs against the quality Australian attack. Sri Lanka have scored the maximum number of runs during the second 10 overs, battering the hapless Kenyans to the tune of 159 runs (yes, a rate of 15.9 rpo).

8. T20-Intls: T20 Batting Index (Min 5 batting innings)

No Batsman          Ctry  Inns  Runs  R/Inns   StRt  BatIdx

 1 Gayle C.H         Win    7    261   37.29  161.1   60.07
 2 Warner D.A        Aus    5    177   35.40  155.3   54.96
 3 Symonds A         Aus   11    337   30.64  169.3   51.88
 4 Masakadza H       Zim    7    258   36.86  135.8   50.05
 5 Hayden M.L        Aus    9    308   34.22  143.9   49.25
 6 Yuvraj Singh      Ind    9    262   29.11  164.8   47.97
 7 Jayasuriya S.T    Slk   11    341   31.00  154.3   47.83
 8 McMillan C.D      Nzl    7    187   26.71  159.8   42.70
 9 Smith D.S         Win    5    166   33.20  123.9   41.13
10 Samuels M.N       Win    6    131   21.83  177.0   38.65
11 Smith G.C         Saf   12    364   30.33  127.3   38.61
12 Oram J.D.P        Nzl   12    293   24.42  156.7   38.26
13 Gambhir G         Ind   11    328   29.82  126.6   37.76
14 Duminy J.P        Saf   10    279   27.90  133.5   37.24
15 Misbah-ul-Haq     Pak   14    422   30.14  122.7   36.98
16 Kemp J.M          Saf    7    203   29.00  126.9   36.79
17 Hussey D.J        Aus    7    181   25.86  141.4   36.56
18 Pietersen K.P     Eng   15    375   25.00  144.2   36.06
19 Ponting R.T       Aus   14    376   26.86  131.5   35.31
20 McCullum B.B      Nzl   21    582   27.71  125.4   34.76

This is a measure which encompasses in a single number the two significant characteristics of T20 batting, (viz), the runs scored and the strike rate. In order to take away the effects of not outs, in any case Batting average in T20 is a non-starter, only Runs per Innings is used. A minimum of 5 batting innings are used to select batsmen.

The measure is a product of the Runs/Innings figure by Strike Rate. This is an excellent measure to determine the batsman's contribution. Longevity does not come into the picture at all.

Gayle, with a Runs/Inns figure of 37.29 and strike rate of 1.611 has an excellent Bat index value of 60.07 and leads by a good margin against the new sensation from Australia, David warner, who has figures of 35.4 and 1.553 leading to 54.96. Third is the incomparable Andrew Symonds, with figures of 34.10 and 1.543, getting a Bat index of 52.62.

The unheralded Masakadza, playing for an unfancied team is the surprising presence at no.4, with an excellent Bat index value of over 50. Yuvraj Singh is the leading Indian and Misbah-ul-Haq, the leading Pakistani batsmen.

9. T20-Intls: % of boundaries in an innings (innings minimum - 50 runs)

No MtId Year Player Name          For  Runs Balls S/R  4-6s  %    vs

 1.0040 2007 Yuvraj Singh         Ind   58   16  362.5   54 93.1% Eng
 2.0011 2006 Jayasuriya S.T       Slk   51   23  221.7   46 90.2% Nzl
 3.0049 2007 Oram J.D.P           Nzl   66   31  212.9   56 84.8% Aus
 4.0014 2007 Smith G.C            Saf   71   40  177.5   60 84.5% Pak
 5.0079 2008 McCullum B.B         Nzl   59   34  173.5   48 81.4% Win
 6.0043 2007 Sharma R.G           Ind   50   40  125.0   40 80.0% Saf
 7.0027 2007 Jayasuriya S.T       Slk   88   44  200.0   68 77.3% Ken
 8.0018 2007 Nazimuddin           Bng   81   50  162.0   62 76.5% Pak
 9.0074 2008 Rizwan Cheema        Can   68   43  158.1   52 76.5% Slk
10.0020 2007 Gibbs H.H            Saf   90   55  163.6   68 75.6% Win
...
14.0020 2007 Gayle C.H            Win  117   57  205.3   88 75.2% Saf

The maximum runs in boundaries in an innings is by Gayle who scored 88 runs off his score of 117 in boundaries. Unfortunately West Indies lost the match.

10. T20-Intls: Overs in which 20 or more runs were conceded

No MtId Year I Bowler Name       For Vs  O        % of Tot Max

 1.0040 2007 1 Broad S.C.J       Eng Ind 19 36 runs 16.5%   20
 2.0001 2005 1 Tuffey D.R        Nzl Aus 19 30 runs 14.0%   20
 3.0027 2007 1 Onyango L.N       Ken Slk 19 29 runs 11.2%   20
 4.0053 2008 1 Patel J.S         Nzl Eng 16 26 runs 14.1%   20
 5.0027 2007 1 Tikolo S.O        Ken Slk 13 25 runs  9.6%   20
 6.0032 2007 1 Yuvraj Singh      Ind Nzl 16 25 runs 13.2%   20
 7.0057 2008 2 Johnson M.G       Aus Win  2 25 runs 24.5%    9
 8.0049 2007 2 Symonds A         Aus Nzl 18 24 runs 18.2%   19
 9.0039 2007 1 Morkel J.A        Saf Nzl 15 24 runs 15.7%   20
10.0024 2007 1 Mohammad Ashraful Bng Win 19 24 runs 14.6%   20
11.0079 2008 1 Edwards F.H       Win Nzl  8 24 runs 12.6%   20
12.0006 2006 1 Hogg G.B          Aus Saf 16 23 runs 11.4%   20
13.0022 2007 1 Haq R.M           Sco Pak 13 23 runs 13.5%   20
14.0088 2009 1 Bracken N.W       Aus Saf 16 23 runs 14.7%   20
15.0025 2007 1 Dabengwa K.M      Zim Eng 13 22 runs 11.7%   20
16.0054 2008 1 Hitchcock P.A     Nzl Eng  5 22 runs 11.4%   20
17.0008 2006 2 Mahmood S.I       Eng Pak  5 22 runs 14.9%   17
18.0047 2007 1 Sreesanth S       Ind Aus 18 22 runs 13.3%   20
19.0035 2007 2 Mohammad Asif     Pak Slk  7 22 runs 14.1%   20
& 12 others who have conceded 21 runs in an over,
& 18 others who have conceded 20 runs in an over.

b. New Zealand batsmen have done this 9 times, followed by South Africa 7 times and Australia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India 6 times each.

c. Australia and New Zealand bowlers have conceded 20 or more runs 8 times while England bowlers 6 times.

d. The Indian batting and England bowling stints converged in the 36-run over essayed by Yuvraj Singh against Broad during the T20 World Cup 2007. The irony is that Yuvraj himself was hit for 25 runs by Oram/McMillan.

e. Hopes, Ashraful, Shahadat Hossain and Sreesanth have conceded 20 or more runs twice in T20 matches.

f. Johnson's 25 run constituted 24.5% of the opposing team total. However this was while a low Australian total was being chased by West Indies, in less than 10 overs. In a complete 19-20 over match, the highest % of runs conceded was in the Symonds over to New Zealand (24 out of 132, but Australia won) and the amazing 36 over bowled by Broad (36 out of 218).

11. T20-Intls: Analysis of maidens bowled

No Bowler             Ctry  Mat  Overs  Mdns  % Mdns   M/M

 1 Price R.W           Zim    4   16.0    3   18.75   0.75
 2 Nel J.D             Sco    6   19.0    3   15.79   0.50
 3 Gillespie M.R       Nzl   11   35.0    3    8.57   0.27
 4 Fernando C.R.D      Slk   13   46.0    3    6.52   0.23
 5 Shahid Afridi       Pak   16   61.3    3    4.88   0.19
 6 Syed Rasel          Bng    8   29.0    2    6.90   0.25
 7 Sreesanth S         Ind    9   34.0    2    5.88   0.22
 8 Bracken N.W         Aus   17   56.5    2    3.52   0.12
 & 29 others who have bowled a single maiden in their career.

b. Ray Price of Zimbabwe has the best record of maiden frequency with 18.75%, followed by J.D.Nel of Scotland (15.8%) and Gillespie of New Zealand with 8.5%. c. The highest number of runs conceded in the 20th over is 21 while the highest number of runs conceded in the first over is 19.

c. In T20s a total of 50 maidens were bowled out of 3238 overs making the frequency at one every 65 matches. Contrast this with the IPL figures of 21 maidens out of 2179 overs, working out to a much lower frequency of a maiden every 104 matches. Possibly due to the higher quality of batsmen present.

Comments (11)