Cricinfo Blogs
cricinfo.com About cricinfoblogs
Beyond The Blues Beyond The Test World Different Strokes From the Editor Girls Aloud Iain O'Brien Inbox
It Figures Pak Spin Shot Selection The Buzz The Confectionery Stall The Surfer Tour Diaries

Cricinfo Blogs Home
Statsguru Home

December 10, 2008

Posted by Ananth Narayanan at in Teams

A tale of 100 Australian Tests





Australia have had plenty of such moments over the last nine years © Getty Images
As the title implies, this is an analytical look at the 100 Tests played by Australia between January 1, 2000 and now. This is a look at determining the extent of their dominance, the Why, and the possible What next.

There are a lot of similarities between the Australian cricket team and Roger Federer. Both dominated their respective games to a level unseen until now. Both had their achilles heal in the Indian team and Nadal respectively. However their overpowering performances during the rest of the period kept them right on top for a long time. They might have been beaten by lesser teams/players once in a while. But that did not make their conquerors World no.1.

When Djokovic defeated Federer at Melbourne, he did not move to (or claim) the No.1 position. Similarly with other players. It took one player, Nadal, to produce consistent top-drawer performances over a long period, across all surfaces, which propelled him to the top, displacing Federer. He won the Monte Carlo Open, Italian Open, German Open, French Open, Wimbledon, Canada Master's and Olympics and only then moved to the top position.

Even then, Federer only moved to No.2 and he showed the fire in him winning the US Open just as Australia have bounced back after their loss to India.

If India or South Africa want to unseat Australia, it is not sufficient that they beat Australia once a while. They have to back this up with consistent wins across the globe and against each other, and that too away. Until then neither team can claim the No.1 spot. Any views to the contrary are hollow and empty words.

Let us look at some tables summarising these 100 matches. These are mostly team-centric analysis with very few individual player references. The format of the tables has been designed to show the years and total horizontally to improve readability.

Summary of series results.

                Total       Won by      Won by
                Played    Australia   Other Team     Draw
All series        32          27           3           2
In Australia      17          15           -           2
Outside           15          12           3           -
The only series lost by Australia were against India during 2001 (1-2), against England during 2005 (1-2) and the recent one against India (0-2). The only series drawn were, surprisingly, both at home. The first one against New Zealand during 2001 (0-0) and the one against India during 2003-04 (1-1).

The three-Test series played against Pakistan during 2002, at Sri Lanka and UAE, has been taken as an away series. The ICC Test series (one match) has also been included in this table.

Only India have a good record against Australia. Of the five series played between these two teams during this period, two have been won by Australia, two by India and one drawn.

Summary of match results

                2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Total

All matches        8    14    11    12    14    15    10     4    12    100
Wins               8     8    10     8    10     9    10     4     5     72
Wins %         100.0  57.1  90.9  66.7  71.4  60.0 100.0 100.0  41.7   72.0
Losses             0     3     1     3     1     2     0     0     3     13
Losses %         0.0  21.4   9.1  25.0   7.1  13.3   0.0   0.0  25.0   13.0
Draws              0     3     0     1     3     4     0     0     4     15
Draws %          0.0  21.4   0.0   8.3  21.4  26.7   0.0   0.0  33.3   15.0
Inns wins          3     2     5     3     1     0     2     1     1     18
Inns wins %     37.5  14.3  45.5  25.0   7.1   0.0  20.0  25.0   8.3   18.0

Home matches       5     6     5     8     7     7     5     4     5     52
Home wins          5     3     5     5     5     6     5     4     3     41
Home wins %    100.0  50.0 100.0  62.5  71.4  85.7 100.0 100.0  60.0   78.8
Home losses        0     0     0     2     0     0     0     0     1      3
Home loss %      0.0   0.0   0.0  25.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0  20.0    5.8

Away matches       3     8     6     4     7     8     5     0     7     48
Away wins          3     5     5     3     5     3     5     0     2     31
Away wins %    100.0  62.5  83.3  75.0  71.4  37.5 100.0   0.0  28.6   64.6
Away losses        0     3     1     1     1     2     0     0     2     10
Away loss %      0.0  37.5  16.7  25.0  14.3  25.0   0.0   0.0  28.6   20.8
Barring small periods of vulnerability, Australia have dominated world cricket during the past nine years, as evidenced by these figures. They have an overall win record of 72% and a loss record of only 13%, only one in eight Tests. It is not that they are only dominant at home, as most teams are. Their home win % is 78.8% as compared to 64.6% outside.

During this period Australia have lost only three Tests at home. The first was the dead rubber Test (at 4-0) against England during 2003. The other two have been against India during 2003 and 2008 respectively, both in live situations. This is an imposing record.

Away from home, the maximum losses have been against India (5 times) followed by England (3 times). Overall Australia's draw % has been a low 15%. Barring recent times, they have always gone for a victory, risking a loss.

Australia's best years have been 2000, 2006 and 2007 when they had a 100% all-won record. Their worst year has been 2008 when they have won less than half the Tests, the only such year during this golden period. Another measure of their dominance has been the number of innings wins they have achieved, 18 in all, an amazing 18% overall. However it must be seen that 11 of these wins (nearly 25%) were achieved during the first four years and the numbers have fallen off recently. Important to note that, during these nine years, not once did Australia lose by an innings.

If one looks at Australia's recent record, say during 2007-08, they have played 16 Tests, won 9, lost 3 (all against India) and drawn 4 matches. This is not the sign of a dominating team, especially the high proportion of drawn matches. The South African series will be a clear pointer to the Australian revival from this minor slump. If they win 3-0 or 2-0, they would have established their dominance. If they win 1-0 or draw the series or lose, there will be a clear sign of fall.

Now let us look at possible contributing factors, both for the dominance and the (possible) fall from such a dominating position.

Summary of partnerships

                2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Total

Aus:Innings       13    25    17    21    27    29    18     7    22    179
Aus:Op >100        2     5     4     1     4     2     0     1     3     22
Aus:Op >100 %   15.4  20.0  23.5   4.8  14.8   6.9   0.0  14.3  13.6   12.3
Aus:Op <10         6     8     4     5     3     6     5     0     5     42
Aus:Op <10 %    46.2  32.0  23.5  23.8  11.1  20.7  27.8   0.0  22.7   23.5
Aus:Op runs      438  1546  1060   776  1458  1365   602   498  1015   8758
Aus:Op avge     33.7  61.8  62.4  37.0  54.0  47.1  33.4  71.1  46.1   48.9

Opp:Innings       16    27    22    24    28    30    20     8    24    199
Opp:Op >100        0     2     1     2     2     3     0     0     2     12
Opp:Op >100 %    0.0   7.4   4.5   8.3   7.1  10.0   0.0   0.0   8.3    6.0
Opp:Op <10         8     7     6    11     9     7     5     3     7     63
Opp:Op <10 %    61.5  28.0  35.3  52.4  33.3  24.1  27.8  42.9  31.8   35.2
Opp:Op runs      232  1031   778   784   732  1077   534   196  1031   6395
Opp:Op avge     17.8  41.2  45.8  37.3  27.1  37.1  29.7  28.0  46.9   35.7
During this period, Australia have had 12.3% of their opening partnerships exceeding 100. This is a very high proportion, on an average once every 4 Tests. Contrast this with the all-Test figure of 8.1%. Almost all these partnerships have had Hayden and more than half have been with Langer. Taking all aspects the best year was 2001-02 when they averaged over 60 for the opening partnership.

The opening failures have also been reasonable, at 23.5%. This compares favourably with the all-Test average for failures which is 28.7%.

Let us look at what the Australian opening bowlers have done. The opposing teams have missed playing only one of the second innings (during a rain-affected match against New Zealand during 2001) and have had only 6% of opening partnerships exceeding 100, below half of the Australian numbers and well below the all-Test figure of 8.1%. The failures have been similarly higher, at 35.2%, much higher than the all-Test value of 28.7%.

We have successfully identified the first two reasons. The success of the Australian opening batsmen and bowlers.

Late order batting

                2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Total

Aus:Last3wPtsh     8    17    12    12    22    22    11     3    18    125
Aus:Last3wRuns   491  1139   591   507  1093  1468   664   165  1090   7208
Aus:Last3wAvge  61.4  67.0  49.2  42.2  49.7  66.7  60.4  55.0  60.6   57.7

Opp:Last3wPtsh    16    25    20    22    26    27    18     8    20    182
Opp:Last3wRuns   613  1301   759  1018  1187  1246   819   347  1000   8290
Opp:Last3wAvge  38.3  52.0  38.0  46.3  45.7  46.1  45.5  43.4  50.0   45.5
The last Australian 3 wickets, when asked to perform, have averaged 57 runs, much higher than the all-Test average of 48. A credit to the batting skills of Warne, Gillespie et al. The corresponding opposite team number has been 45, somewhat comparable to the all time figure, no doubt bolstered by the recent Indian late-order batting exploits.

Team batting and bowling summary

                2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Total

Aus:BallsBwled  6909 12768  9420 11146 15176 14458 10076  3744 13252  96949
Aus:RunsScored  3942  8042  6279  7596  8994  8944  6125  2436  7300  59658
Aus:WktsTaken    160   248   215   224   257   281   191    80   211   1867
Aus: RpO        3.42  3.78  4.00  4.09  3.56  3.71  3.65  3.90  3.31   3.69
Aus: BpW        43.2  51.5  43.8  49.8  59.1  51.5  52.8  46.8  62.8   51.9
Aus:DiffBatRpO  0.57  0.60  0.98  0.95  0.58  0.47  0.55  1.00 -0.02   0.58
Aus:DiffBowS/R  23.9  27.4  30.7  48.4  -0.5  14.1  28.8  59.7   8.7   22.0

Opp:BallsBwled  6780 14286 10289 13738 13693 14487 10355  4047 13666 101341
Opp:RunsScored  3226  7554  5176  7172  6795  7833  5340  1962  7568  52626
Opp:WktsTaken    101   181   138   140   234   221   127    38   191   1371
Opp: RpO        2.85  3.17  3.02  3.13  2.98  3.24  3.09  2.91  3.32   3.12
Opp: BpW        67.1  78.9  74.6  98.1  58.5  65.6  81.5 106.5  71.5   73.9
The RpO figure during this period has started and finished at either side of 3.5 with a peak of around 4 during couple of years (2001-02). This is way above the all-Test figure of 2.79. The overall faster scoring was one of the main reasons for the Australian successes and the reduction in draws.

The overall bowling strike rate has been an excellent 52 balls per wicket, as compared to 68 overall. Once every 8+ overs means they were looking at dismissing an opposing team within a day's play.

The opposing teams have also been quite good with an overall RpO figure of 3.12. However they have been way below par in their strike rate value which is more than 70. However remember this includes 6 Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

I have also introduced couple of other factors, differential in nature. One is the difference between the Batting RpO values of Australia and the opposing teams. Australia have exceeded the other teams by an overall substantial value of 0.58. Only once, during the current year, have the other teams matched the Australian figures. Similarly Australia have consistently captured a wicket every 22 balls more frequently than the opposing teams. Only during 2004 have the other teams managed to better Australia's BpW figure.

Summary of innings scores

                2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Total

Aus:Comp Inns      7    13    10    10    19    18     8     2    16    103
Aus:Inns<100       0     0     0     0     1     0     0     0     0      1
Aus:Inns<100 %   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   5.3   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0    1.0
Aus:Inns          13    25    17    21    27    29    18     7    22    179
Aus:Inns>500       1     3     4     6     4     3     4     2     3     30
Aus:Inns>500 %   7.7  12.0  23.5  28.6  14.8  10.3  22.2  28.6  13.6   16.8

Opp:Comp Inns     16    19    21    20    24    26    17     8    18    169
Opp:Inns<100       1     0     3     1     3     0     0     0     0      8
Opp:Inns<100 %   6.2   0.0  14.3   5.0  12.5   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0    4.7
Opp:Inns          16    27    22    24    28    30    20     8    24    199
Opp:Inns>500       0     3     0     1     1     0     1     0     3      9
Opp:Inns>500 %   0.0  11.1   0.0   4.2   3.6   0.0   5.0   0.0  12.5    4.5
During these nine years only once have Australia been dismissed below 100. That was on the worst pitch ever created (in India at least), at Mumbai during 2004. They have exceeded 500 a whopping 16.8%, one in every six innings. These figures are overwhelming and point to a batting might, possibly comparable to the 1948 Australians. Look at 2003, when one in four of Australia's innings exceeded 500. Surprisingly this was not a great year for Australia since they lost three matches.

The opposing teams have been dismissed below 100 4.7% of the innings completed, slightly above the 3.84% overall. They have also exceeded 500 4.5% of the innings played, way below the overall 6.5%. Incidentally 7 of these 9 innings above 500 have been scored by India.

Finally the summarised reasons for the Australian domination. I would appreciate it if the readers do not write to me that these are obvious. These are not off-the-cuff subjective conclusions, as normally made. These are based on a thorough analysis and have been derived in an objective manner.

1. The success of the opening partnerships - both in terms of increased successes and considerably reduced failures.
2. The way the Australian opening bowlers have reversed the above trend, not allowing successes and the high number of breakthroughs very early in the innings.
3. An overall very high scoring rate.
4. A very high bowling strike rate despite the presence of the slightly lower-striking Shane Warne (57 bpw) throughout.
5. Rare batting failures and frequent batting successes in terms of innings scores.
6. The only reference to an individual in this team-centric analysis: one of the major reasons for Australian domination during these 9 years has been the performance of Adam Gilchrist, who scored 5130 runs at an average of 46.64 and effected 397 dismissals. That sort of all-round performance meant that Australia had invariably been able to play with an extra bowler/allrounder through the luxury of having Gilchrist bat at No.7.

What does the future hold for Australia. It is possible for Australia to lose their No.1 position, provided India maintains its very competitive recent Test performances, both home and away. They have to win away consistently and win at home comfortably. Similarly for the South Africans, with a lower degree of possibility. I am not certain whether any other team has the resources to test Australia over a long period. Pakistan lack a dynamic captain while England lack top-quality players.

Australia will go through a phase of re-building and will come back stronger. However the days of domination are probably over. The No.1 position will swing between 3-4 teams.

The same thing applies to Federer. He will win around 15-16 Grand Slam titles and probably go back to No.1, but not at the dominating level as exhibited earlier. So the similarities between Australian team and Federer will continue.

Comments (20)

The Contributors

Y Anantha Narayanan has over 35 years of IT background. Over the past 15 years, he has been concentrating on Cricket analysis and software development. He has been involved with StumpVision, Wisden, Hallmark Software and his own site www.thirdslip.com during this period.
David Barry
David Barry was cricket-starved when teaching English in France, and study of cricket stats was his only way to stay sane. He is now back in Brisbane, Australia, and working towards a PhD in Physics. He once played for the worst team in the G-division of Muscat's cricket league.

After doing an MBA in marketing and working in an advertising agency, S Rajesh decided that his skills might be put to better use by number-crunching on cricket. He hasn’t regretted that decision in the last six years, and edits the Numbers Game column on cricinfo.com every Friday.

Andrew Samson had his moments with bat and ball, once scoring 43 and taking 3 for 14 with his legbreaks, but he was much better at arithmetic, which explains why he is where he is today. Andrew has been keeping cricket stats since the days when it used to be done with pen and paper, and has been involved in scoring/stats for Radio and TV since 1987. He has been Cricket South Africa's official statistician since1994.
Charles Davis
A former scientist and occasional TV quiz champion, Charles Davis now works full time at sports statistics in Melbourne. His only real contribution to the Test record books came at age 4, when he formed part of the record 90,800 crowd who saw West Indies at the MCG in 1961. He has two books to his credit, and claims to be the only cricket statistician ever who has been quoted in the New York Times and in Australian Federal Parliament on the same day. Not to be confused with the West Indian batsman Charlie Davis, especially in terms of ability.
Ric Finlay
Having just taken early retirement as a Mathematics teacher in Hobart, Ric Finlay now fully devotes his time to recording cricket, both past and present, for the popular CSW cricket database, along with his colleague David Fitzgerald (www.tastats.com.au). His interest in the game is inversely proportional to his ability as a player, but he did once score a century after being dropped at 3 and running out three of his team-mates. His first memory of international cricket is the 1962-63 MCC tour of Australia, described as one of the most boring ever. Totally fascinated, he was instantly hooked, and has never looked back. Author of three books on cricket of a historical nature, he has provided statistics and scored for radio and television cricket coverage since 1983.
Categories
About (2) Allrounders (3) Batsmen v bowlers (1) Captaincy (2) Grounds (1) ODIs (3) Test cricket (4) Batting (10) Teams (1) Tests - bowling (6) Trivia (2) Trivia - batting (33) Trivia - bowling (9) Twenty20 (4) Wicketkeepers (2)
Recent Posts
Least number of absences over a long career What's a reasonable winning score in ODIs? Analysing bowlers in Test wins How far ahead is the top one - part II In a winning cause How far ahead is the top one ... Follow-up on comparing halves of players' careers Comparing the two halves of players' careers Following up on the Test batsmen peer analysis Comparing Test batsmen with their peers
Archives
November 2009October 2009September 2009August 2009July 2009June 2009May 2009April 2009March 2009February 2009January 2009December 2008November 2008October 2008September 2008August 2008July 2008June 2008May 2008April 2008March 2008February 2008January 2008December 2007November 2007
RSS Feeds RSS Feed
© Cricinfo 2009