September 4, 2009
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Test cricket
Comparing the two halves of players' careers
|
|
|
Younis Khan's average in the second half of his Test career is 55.7% more than his average in the first half
© AFP
|
| In the past few posts, we have compared Test batsmen (and bowlers) with their peers; with batsmen batting at specific batting positions; with one's own team members. Now we will be looking inward. Let us compare a Test batsman/bowler with himself. I will look at the two halves of the player careers and do a comparison between these two (mostly dissimilar) periods.
The usual criteria apply. This is just to ensure that the career is sufficiently long. I have taken 4000 runs and 45 Tests as the cut-off for batsmen and 150 wickets and 45 Tests as cut-off for bowlers. These two sets of twin conditions ensure that bowlers such as Barnes do not get into the picture. Most of the top keepers get in.
Only the batting average and bowling average are used for comparison. These two are the most trusted of all measures and will provide a very good platform for a clear understanding of a Test players' career.
Test Batsmen: Analysing the two career halves
SNo Cty Batsman |<----Career---->|<--1st Half->|<-2nd Half>| % Chg
|Tests Runs Avge|Mt Runs Avge|Runs Avge|
| | | |
1.Pak Younis Khan | 63 5260 50.10|32-2033 39.10|3227 60.89| 55.7%
2.Zim Flower A | 63 4794 51.55|32-2013 41.94|2781 61.80| 47.4%
3.Aus Redpath I.R | 66 4737 43.46|33-1813 35.55|2924 50.41| 41.8%
4.Nzl Wright J.G | 82 5334 37.83|41-2123 31.22|3211 43.99| 40.9%
5.Aus Chappell I.M | 75 5345 42.42|38-2219 35.22|3126 49.62| 40.9%
...
53.Eng Hobbs J.B | 61 5410 56.95|31-2733 56.94|2677 56.96| 0.0%
...
97.Aus Hayden M.L | 103 8626 50.74|52-4714 58.92|3912 43.47|-26.2%
98.Eng Smith R.A | 62 4236 43.67|31-2255 51.25|1981 37.38|-27.1%
99.Win Kallicharran A.I| 66 4399 44.43|33-2582 52.69|1817 36.34|-31.0%
100.Aus Gilchrist A.C | 96 5570 47.61|48-3073 59.10|2497 38.42|-35.0%
101.Aus Harvey R.N | 79 6149 48.42|40-3830 61.77|2319 35.68|-42.2%
Younis Khan has achieved the highest jump from the first half to second half, an astounding 55.7%. His average has improved from 39.10 to 60.89. Note that in his last 31 Tests he has scored at higher than 100 runs per Test.
Andy Flower has improved from 41.94 to 61.80, an increase of 47.4%, that too playing in a weak team. Ian Redpath, John Wright and Ian Chappell have also finished their careers very strongly.
For consistency one need not look beyond Jack Hobbs. He has only a second decimal difference in his second half average to the first half. Steve Waugh and Andrew Strauss are close to achieving this perfection.
Gilchrist's huge fall, from 59.10 to 38.42 is understandable considering that he had an explosive start and fell off drastically towards the end. What is surprising is the fall of Neil Harvey, who dropped his average from 60+ to 35. This is quite inexplicable. He scored 15 of his 21 hundreds in the first half of his career. Gilchrist, on the other hand, scored 9 of his 17 hundreds in the first half of his career. However he was dismissed for many single digit scores, quite a few 0s included, during the second half.
Note how Hayden, R Smith and Kallicharan have also fallen off.
To view the complete list, please click here.
Test Bowlers: Analysing the two career halves
No Cty Batsman |<----Career---->|<-1st Half-->|<2nd Half>| % Chg
|Tests Wkts Avge|Mt Wkts Avge|Wkts Avge|
| | | |
1.Eng Laker J.C | 46 193 21.25|23- 78 29.95| 115 15.35| 48.8%
2.Eng Bedser A.V | 51 236 24.90|26- 100 33.87| 136 18.30| 46.0%
3.Pak Iqbal Qasim | 50 171 28.11|25- 65 35.78| 106 23.41| 34.6%
4.Nzl Hadlee R.J | 86 431 22.30|43- 192 26.17| 239 19.19| 26.7%
5.Nzl Morrison D.K | 48 160 34.68|24- 73 39.53| 87 30.61| 22.6%
6.Slk Muralitharan M | 129 783 22.22|65- 337 25.48| 446 19.76| 22.5%
...
38.Aus McKenzie G.D | 60 246 29.79|30- 126 29.81| 120 29.77| 0.1%
...
66.Win Gibbs L.R | 79 309 29.09|40- 176 24.56| 133 35.09|-42.9%
67.Pak Mushtaq Ahmed | 52 185 32.97|26- 105 27.51| 80 40.14|-45.9%
68.Win Hall W.W | 48 192 26.39|24- 119 22.15| 73 33.29|-50.3%
69.Eng Botham I.T | 102 383 28.40|51- 231 23.46| 152 35.91|-53.1%
70.Eng Lock G.A.R | 49 174 25.58|25- 104 20.13| 70 33.67|-67.2%
Laker moved from an average spinner to Lohmannish figures in the second half, no doubt aided by the 19 for 90 at Manchester. That is nearly 50% improvement. Similar with Alec Bedser, who had totally different career halves. What about Richard Hadllee, with sub-20 average in the second half of his career. Again Muralitharan's last 64 Tests have had sub-20 average and an average of 7, yes, you read it correctly, 7 wickets per Test.
McKenzie was like Hobbs, averaging almost the same figure in his two halves. Saqlain Mushtaq and McDermott are in the middle group.
Look at the last five, especially Ian Botham. He was a shadow of himself, increasing his average by over 50%. Lock's figures are still more astounding. An average of 20.13 moving to 33.67 and below 3 wickets per Test. Possibly he played the supporting role to Laker quite often as happened at Manchester in 1956.
To view the complete list, please click here.
This blog is going nowhere with readers following a single agenda, whatever be the subject matter of the article. I have had complaints from serious readers that the purpose of the articles is lost. Hence a firm reminder that only relevant comments will be published. Henceforth I will not and readers should not forget that the purpose of the blog is to come out with new analytical efforts. I myself have been guilty of side-tracking into irrelevant and/or non-cricketing issues. Remind me, gently or otherwise, to remove the offending comment or response.
Comments (24)
April 17, 2009
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Test cricket
Ananth answers readers' queries - 1
A number of readers had raised queries requesting me to answer those. I have taken a few of these and attempted to provide an answer. Once in two months or so I will do a similar article.
1. Test teams with maximum number of 10+ / 15+ / 20+ Batting averages:
There was a query from WPHE about Test teams where all eleven players have had a career-to-date average in double figures.
I did a simple analysis and as I expected there are many teams, over 600, with this level of all cumulative batting averages exceeding 10. For instance most recent Indian, Australian and South African teams have even the no.11 batsman with a 10+ average.
However, this query intrigued me quite a bit especially as the late order batsmen have improved drastically of late. I did some more work on this very interesting query and the results are posted below.
First I raised the bar to 15.00 thinking that it would reduce the list to a manageable one. Good reduction, but not enough. 59 teams qualified. That is a lot. So I took the plunge and set the bar at 20.00, fully expecting a list with no entries. I was surprised to see 3 teams with all players having a career-to-date average exceeding 20.00. The teams are given below.
All batsmen exceeding career-to-date average of 20.00
0023 1886 Eng vs Aus 11
0528 1962 Ind vs Win 11
1177 1991 Ind vs Aus 11
Let us look at the three teams. Most of the analysis would centre around the last three players since the other 8 are normally expected to have averages exceeding 20.00.
The first is a very early English team. Tylecote, the keeper, had an average of 20.29. Briggs, although a bowler, had an average of 22.50. Lohmann made his debut in the previous Test and had a score and average of 32.00. To readers who complain that only one innings had been played, take it easy, this is only a quixotic analysis.
The third team, also India, has peculiar similarities to the first English team. Kiran More, the wicketkeeper batting at no.8, was a good batsman. Raju had a career-to-date average of 21.00 in 5 innings. Srinath, who made his debut in this Test, scored 21 in the first innings, hence having a career-to-date average of 21.00. Needless to say that both these bowlers finished with career averages way below 20.00. However the rules have been satisfied.
The second team, the Indian team of 1962, is the only team to have all genuine averages exceeding 20.00 since all the eleven batsmen also finished with averages exceeding 20.00. This team had Borde (3061 at 35.59) at no.8, Durrani (1202 at 25.04) at no.9, Nadkarni (1414 at 25.71) at no.10 and Kunderan (981 at 32.70) at no.11. All these four also had career-to-date average exceeding 20.00. To boot, all these four have career Test centuries to their credit. This is the only team in Test history to have such a collection of good averages. The fact that they lost to a strong West Indian team is incidental.
The underlined sentence made me think that there is something unique. If the last four in the batting order have a Test century to their credit, does this team have 11 centurions (career, not career-to-date). Alas, the Indian propensity for weak top order batsmen spoiled that. Vijay Mehra has a highest Test score of 62 and Rusi surti has a heart-breaking highest Test score of 99. So there are only 9 centurions in this team.
2. Test teams with maximum number of centurions:
The threads seem to go on. What, then about other teams with 9 or 10 Test centurions.
One more program written and the results are set out below. I set the bar at 9 centurions. Well the table hit the ceiling, with 267 entries. So I raised the limit to 10 centurions and the table is presented below.
List of teams with 10 centurions
1397 1998 Saf vs Aus 10 (Adam Bacher - 96)
1444 1999 Pak vs Ind 10 (Shoaib Akhtar - 47)
1485 2000 Pak vs Slk 10 (Waqar Younis - 45)
1547 2001 Pak vs Eng 10 (Waqar Younis - 45)
1717 2004 Nzl vs Bng 10 (Wiseman - 36)
1775 2005 Ind vs Slk 10 (Harbhajan - 66)
1776 2005 Ind vs Slk 10 Do
1778 2005 Ind vs Slk 10 Do
1781 2006 Ind vs Pak 10 Do
Of great interest is the one batsman who has not scored a century than the other 10. That information is given in brackets along with the highest score reached by the batsman.
It is of interest that the only case of a genuine top-order batsman spoiling the "Perfect 11" is Adam Bacher. The others are bowlers. It is also of interest that in many of these matches, bowlers such as Wasim Akram, Saqlain Mushtaq, Vettori, Kumble et al have scored their 100s, before or after the concerned match.
The most interesting set is the one containing the last 4 matches. The way Harbhajan Singh bats nowadays, it is only a matter of time before he reaches 100, in which case, all these four teams would reach the "Perfect 11".
3. Test teams with career-to-date double centurions:
Chandran had raised a query on Test teams with 6 batsmen who had scored double centuries. I had analysed this and presented two teams, one Pakistani and another Australian, which had seven double centurions. However, Keyur has correctly pointed that two of the double centuries in both matches had been scored after the concerned match. As such the India - South Africa match referred to by Chandran becomes the first match in which 6 batsmen have had double centuries to their credit. Great little idea and my thanks to Chandran, Agni and of course Keyur.
4. Test teams with all 11 players having captured wicket(s):
The idea of looking at teams which had all players with at least one test wicket to their names came to me as a logical extension to the batsman queries which I have been doing. In reality it is the batsmen who determine this list.
Teams with all 11 players capturing wicket(s)
0384 1954 Win vs Eng 11 (McWatt-1, Weekes-1)
0386 1954 Win vs Eng 11 (McWatt-1, Weekes-1, Holt-1)
0404 1955 Win vs Aus 11 (McWatt-1, Weekes-1, Holt-1)
0571 1964 Eng vs Saf 11 (Parks-1, MJK Smith-1)
0572 1964 Eng vs Saf 11 (Parks-1, MJK Smith-1)
0573 1965 Eng vs Saf 11 (Parks-1, MJK Smith-1)
0575 1965 Eng vs Saf 11 (Parks-1, MJK Smith-1)
0871 1980 Ind vs Pak 11 (Kirmani-1, Viswanath-1, Gavaskar-1)
0961 1983 Ind vs Pak 11 (Kirmani-1, Gavaskar-1)
0962 1983 Ind vs Pak 11 (Kirmani-1, Yashpal-1, Gavaskar-1)
Normally the wicket-keeper is likely to be the culprit when it comes to taking wicket(s) so his name is listed first. Only the single wicket takers are listed.
5. Bowler/Fielder combination:
For this there is a ready-made table in Cricinfo's records section. For the record, Lillee/Marsh combination leads with 95 dismissals. My take is also that it may be very difficult for any Bowler/Fielder combination to reach 100 dismissals. Ntini/Boucher need 16 more dismissals which might require around 17/18 matches. Quite unlikely to happen. Muralitharan/Jayawardene, which is the highest Bowler/Fielder combination, accounts for 71 dismissals. 29 more (?!), possibly not since it might require 25 more Tests.
I get the feeling that the career-to-date figures are going to play a significant part in any future analysis. i will strengthen the Batting career-to-date figures and introduce one for Bowling also since I have not completed the Bowling career-to-date figures in a structured manner, resorting to ad-hoc computations when needed.
Comments (3)
November 7, 2008
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Test cricket
A summary of Test cricket by period (Part 2)
|
|
|
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
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Test cricket
A summary of Test cricket by period (Part 1)
|
|
|
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)
|
RSS Feed
