March 27, 2008
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Trivia - bowling
|
|
|
Curtly Ambrose had the measure of most batsmen he bowled to
© Getty Images
|
|
I was in for a surprise with my previous post. I never expected it to receive so many comments (nearly 200) many of which were quite complimentary. My favourite post so far has been the one on the Revised Batting Average. Possibly the reason for the mixed reactions on that post might have been the fact that the traditional definition of batting average exists in the mind of many people who are not going to accept a change quickly. On the other hand this idea of "Batsman wicket quality" is totally new and many people have appreciated the originality of the theme.
Many good suggestions were received. It was difficult to decide what to take up and what to discard. However I have taken up three tweaks for implementation, in increasing order of difficulty.
Since I do not want to post a follow-up to a follow-up, I will respond individually to comments which I feel deserve a further response.
Quite a few complex computational alternatives have been suggested. I have gone through all these, and most have some merit. However, I have decided to retain the easy-to-understand methodology adopted by me since it would be possible for everyone to follow the computations easily - that axiom has always been the cornerstone of my analysis. I must acknowledge the originality of some of the suggestions, though.
1. Raising the bar to 200 wickets (now only 54 qualifying bowlers in lists)
Quite a few readers have suggested raising the qualifying bar to 200 wickets. This request is like a half-volley outside the off stump, bowled to a set batsman, which would be instantly driven for four. Only a few minutes work was needed here. The revised table is presented below. It should be noted that only the qualifying bar is raised and no other change has been done. Of course, this is only a temporary exercise for this blog and my database table cut-off stays at 100 wickets.
Table 1: Ordered by BQI
SNo Bowler Bow Cty Mat Wkt Sum of BQI
BatAvge
1.Caddick A.R RFM Eng 62 234 7706.0 32.93
2.Hoggard M.J RFM Eng 67 248 8157.0 32.89
3.McKenzie G.D RF Aus 60 246 8018.0 32.59
4.Gough D RF Eng 58 229 7238.0 31.61
5.Bedser A.V RFM Eng 51 236 7456.0 31.59
6.Thomson J.R RF Aus 51 200 6291.0 31.45
7.Snow J.A RFM Eng 49 202 6313.0 31.25
8.Underwood D.L LSP Eng 86 297 9212.0 31.02
9.McDermott C.J RF Aus 71 291 8988.0 30.89
10.Lillee D.K RF Aus 70 355 10919.0 30.76
...
...
50.Abdul Qadir RLB Pak 67 236 6516.0 27.61
51.Waqar Younis RFM Pak 87 373 10156.0 27.23
52.Garner J RF Win 58 259 6903.0 26.65
53.Wasim Akram LFM Pak 104 414 10754.0 25.98
54.MacGill S.C.G RLB Aus 42 203 5231.0 25.77
One reason for the low placement of Muttiah Muralitharan, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis in this table might be their skill in taking lower-order wickets quickly and effectively. This is indeed a great attribute of these bowlers, and not to be scoffed at. It is true these great bowlers would have taken many top-order wickets and quite a few lower-order wickets also.
Table 2: Ordered by Difference between BQI and Bowling Average
SNo Bowler Bow Cty BowAvge BQI Diff
1.Marshall M.D RF Win 20.95 30.06 9.11
2.Ambrose C.E.L RF Win 20.99 29.85 8.86
3.McGrath G.D RFM Aus 21.64 30.43 8.79
4.Donald A.A RF Saf 22.25 29.27 7.01
5.Trueman F.S RF Eng 21.58 28.44 6.86
6.Lillee D.K RF Aus 23.92 30.76 6.83
7.Hadlee R.J RFM Nzl 22.30 29.09 6.79
8.Bedser A.V RFM Eng 24.90 31.59 6.69
9.Imran Khan RF Pak 22.81 29.44 6.63
10.Pollock S.M RFM Saf 23.12 29.62 6.50
...
...
50.Harbhajan Singh ROB Ind 31.40 28.71 -2.69
51.Sobers G.St.A LM Win 34.04 30.47 -3.57
52.Danish Kaneria RLB Pak 33.90 29.84 -4.06
53.Abdul Qadir RLB Pak 32.81 27.61 -5.19
54.Vettori D.L LSP Nzl 34.23 28.64 -5.59
A few suggested that instead of determining the measure of difference between BQI and Bowling Average, a measure of quotient, say BQI/Bowling Average can be determined. This has its own merits. However the differences are likely to be minimal: 40 minus 25 and 35 minus 20 both will work out to 15 while 40/25 will work out to 1.6 and 35/20 will work out to 1.75. It is difficult to select one method over the other. What I have done, however is to provide this information also in the Table. It can be seen that there is virtually no difference between Tables 2 and 2A.
Table 2A: Ordered by Quotient between BQI and Bowling Average
SNo Bowler Bow Cty BowAvge BQI Quot
1.Marshall M.D RF Win 20.95 30.06 1.43
2.Ambrose C.E.L RF Win 20.99 29.85 1.42
3.McGrath G.D RFM Aus 21.64 30.43 1.41
4.Trueman F.S RF Eng 21.58 28.44 1.32
5.Donald A.A RF Saf 22.25 29.27 1.32
6.Hadlee R.J RFM Nzl 22.30 29.09 1.30
7.Lillee D.K RF Aus 23.92 30.76 1.29
8.Imran Khan RF Pak 22.81 29.44 1.29
9.Muralitharan M ROB Slk 21.77 27.78 1.28
10.Pollock S.M RFM Saf 23.12 29.62 1.28
2. Taking into account the batsman score at the time of dismissal
Quite a few readers have also suggested that the batsman's score, at the time of dismissal, should be considered. This is an excellent idea and strengthens the concept of quality of wickets taken by bringing in a "when" factor in addition to the "who" factor. This suggestion falls smack in between the previous and the next suggestions in terms of implementation difficulties. I have gone over my notes and come out with the following methodology.
Assign a weightage of 50% to the dismissed batsman's average [current or career, whatever it might be]. Assign the other 50% weightage to the batsman score at the time of dismissal, ranging from 100% credit for dismissal at 0 to 0% credit for any dismissal at or above the batsman average. A few examples are given below.
Batsman Avge Score BQI-Fixed BQI-Variable BQI-Total
Bradman 99.94 0 49.97 49.97 99.94
Bradman 99.94 67 49.97 16.47 66.44
Bradman 99.94 304 49.97 0 49.97 (any score above 99)
Tendulkar 55.58 0 27.79 27.79 55.58
Tendulkar 55.58 25 27.79 15.29 43.08
Tendulkar 55.58 75 27.79 0 27.79 (any score above 55)
Vettori 27.12 0 13.56 13.56 27.12
Vettori 27.12 11 13.56 8.08 21.64
Vettori 27.12 28 13.56 0 13.56 (any score above 27)
Based on the modified calculation methodology, the revised tables are given below. This modification now reflects a significant improvement. It must, however, be noted the revised report is not comparable with the earlier reports since the basis has changed significantly. Previously the bowler got 100% of the Batting Average as credit. Now he gets 50% + x% as credit. As such the average BQI values have dropped and this report should be seen on its own.
The only comparison possible will be between this option and the next option, to be done in future.
Table 4: Ordered by BQI (Revised)
SNo Bowler Bow Cty Mat Wkt SumAvge BQI
1.Hoggard M.J RFM Eng 67 248 6412.0 25.85
2.Caddick A.R RFM Eng 62 234 6045.2 25.83
3.McKenzie G.D RF Aus 60 246 6146.3 24.98
4.Gough D RF Eng 58 229 5618.7 24.54
5.McGrath G.D RFM Aus 124 563 13766.6 24.45
6.Snow J.A RFM Eng 49 202 4910.8 24.31
7.Marshall M.D RF Win 81 376 8973.4 23.87
8.Ambrose C.E.L RF Win 98 405 9650.2 23.83
9.Bedser A.V RFM Eng 51 236 5581.4 23.65
10.Lillee D.K RF Aus 70 355 8314.5 23.42
...
...
50.Muralitharan M ROB Slk 118 723 14511.2 20.07
51.Danish Kaneria RLB Pak 51 220 4410.2 20.05
52.Vettori D.L LSP Nzl 78 241 4810.6 19.96
53.Benaud R RLB Aus 63 248 4925.8 19.86
54.MacGill S.C.G RLB Aus 42 203 3807.4 18.76
For a full list, please click here.
No one can have complaints on the top ten bowlers. The only surprise is the presence of Matthew Hoggard, Andy Caddick and Darren Gough in the top four. The only reason, as already surmised, could be their playing against Australia and India quite frequently recently. Another reason could be the generally high current batting averages.
Table 5: Ordered by Quotient of BQI and Bowling Average (Revised)
SNo Bowler Bow Cty BowAvge BQI Diff Quot
1.Ambrose C.E.L RF Win 20.99 23.83 2.84 1.14
2.Marshall M.D RF Win 20.95 23.87 2.92 1.14
3.McGrath G.D RFM Aus 21.64 24.45 2.81 1.13
4.Trueman F.S RF Eng 21.58 22.99 1.41 1.07
5.Donald A.A RF Saf 22.25 22.41 0.16 1.01
6.Hadlee R.J RFM Nzl 22.30 22.49 0.19 1.01
7.Pollock S.M RFM Saf 23.12 23.06 -0.06 1.00
8.Garner J RF Win 20.98 20.86 -0.12 0.99
9.Holding M.A RF Win 23.69 23.37 -0.31 0.99
10.Lillee D.K RF Aus 23.92 23.42 -0.50 0.98
...
...
50.MacGill S.C.G RLB Aus 28.15 18.76 -9.39 0.67
51.Abdul Qadir RLB Pak 32.81 20.64 -12.17 0.63
52.Sobers G.St.A LM Win 34.04 21.11 -12.92 0.62
53.Danish Kaneria RLB Pak 33.90 20.05 -13.86 0.59
54.Vettori D.L LSP Nzl 34.23 19.96 -14.27 0.58
For a full list, please click here.
If one adds Wasim and Waqar to the top ten, this is almost a list of the top dozen pace bowlers of all time.
3. Applying the cumulative batsman average at the beginning of the Test (as against the career average)
Many people suggested applying "upto-current Test" batting average rather than the "career" batting average. This was the most voiced comment and deserves to be considered seriously. This has an impact at the early stages of a batsman's career. I had considered doing this earlier itself but ruled against it because of the complexity involved. Dynamic determination of the "upto-current Test" averages is very cumbersome. This method will slow down any analysis, even considering the high pentium speeds. The only alternative is to determine the "upto-current Test" averages as a one-off exercise for all 1866 Tests, store these static data within the match data for each player and use these any time required. Of course, the current averages will have to be created for each new Test as the data is appended. This exercise requires a redefinition of the database layout and considerable amount of programming since it is a systemic change. I will do this in the near future and make the results available to all the interested readers, even if not through a post in this blog.
Conclusion
It is amusing to see people complaining, even abusing the "Indian ***********" about the absence of their favourite bowlers from the list, most prominently Wasim Akram. Not having understood the analysis is a possible reason. The other reason is the difficulty in accepting any list which does not meet their perceived conclusions.
If I make a list of bowlers who have taken a hat-trick in Tests, Wasim Akram will appear twice. Dennis Lillee, Murali, Anil Kumble, Waqar and Richard Hadlee etc would not be on the list while Peter Petherick, Alok Kapali, Andy Blignaut, James Franklin and Irfan Pathan will appear in that list. Should one disown such a list because of the absence of the marquee names?
Just for the record, here is my own list, in alphabetical order, of the all-time great bowlers, taking all factors into consideration. This should satisfy the readers who should know that there is no narrow-minded chauvinism at work here.
Sydney Barnes, Bishan Bedi, Richard Hadlee, Michael Holding, Lillee, Malcolm Marshall, Glenn McGrath, Muttiah Muralitharan, Waqar Younis, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram.
A few have rightly commented on the dilution of the average because great bowlers tend to take lower-order wickets. Michael Clark and Onkar Walavalkar, among others, have given the example of someone taking all ten wickets would have the average batting average lowered significantly. My submission is that this list does not rate the bowlers at all. It is an alternative measure, hitherto untapped. The same Kumble whose ten-wicket haul in Delhi had an average batting average of 31 would have a higher average of batting average in the West Indies match in St Lucia - in which he took three wickets - of 41. It works both ways and over a long career, these variations even out. The points are well made, I concede.
Other interesting comments are by people complaining that the need is to enjoy the game and not reduce it to numbers or terming such analysis as useless or me as jobless (possibly I am !!!). Let me reply by saying that there are different types of cricket followers. There are those who only like to watch the game, they would not even bother about the batsman's strike-rate or some such simple measure. There are a few who are only number nerds. There are millions in between, the author included, who enjoy both watching the game and analysing it. If one does not want to see such analysis why get into this blog, which is purely an analyst's corner, at all? Entry to this blog is voluntary.
The comments for this post have been the most received so far for any post and have been very enjoyable, whether bouquets or brickbats. I have been made to think in a lateral manner and I thank all those who took the time to comment. It has been a great experience.
Comments (32)
March 14, 2008
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Trivia - bowling
|
|
|
Malcolm Marshall dismissed plenty of top-class batsmen without giving away too many runs
© Getty Images
|
|
About a month back, I had done a post on the most consistent bowlers in Tests, as part of an analysis on bowlers. I had mentioned then that there would be two measures for bowlers - the second one is on the quality of wickets taken by bowlers.
In view of the very high number of comments received, we will close the comments by evening of Friday, 21 March so that a comprehensive follow-up can be posted.
Consider three recent innings summaries:
West Indies 215 all out (Sehwag 3-33, Patel 3-51, Kumble 3-57)
These numbers suggest Virender Sehwag was the best of the lot and Anil Kumble the worst. In reality, it was the other way around. Kumble took the wickets of Chris Gayle, Brian Lara and Dwayne Bravo. Munaf Patel took the wickets of Daren Ganga, Ramnaresh Sarwan and Denesh Ramdin, while Sehwag collected the tailenders - Ian Bradshaw, Jerome Taylor and Pedro Collins. Another example:
India 240 all out (Ntini 3-41, M Morkel 3-86)
Makhaya Ntini captured the wickets of Wasim Jaffer, Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly while Morne Morkel captured the wickets of Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Kumble and Zaheer Khan. For that matter, the spell of Andre Nel, who captured only two wickets - those of Sehwag and Dravid - is better than that of Morkel.
Bangladesh 259 all out (Ntini 4-35, Steyn 4-66)
Here both bowlers took the same number of wickets, but Dale Steyn took the top four while Ntini mopped up the tail.
In the wickets column of scorecards there is the bland pronouncement that a bowler has captured x number of wickets. There is no information on whose wickets he captured. This analysis seeks to secure such information.
The computation is simple. Every wicket captured by a bowler in the 1865 Test matches played so far is analysed, and the sum of career batting averages of the batsmen dismissed is calculated. It is then divided by the number of wickets captured by each bowler and a Batting Quality Index (BQI) arrived at. It's a simple but exhaustive calculation, which is impossible manually.
The top ten bowlers in this list - criterion being at least 100 Test wickets - ordered by BQI is startling. (I would appreciate it if readers do not immediately write in saying "Wasim Akram is the greatest", "Who are these clowns", "Boje and Dillon could not find a regular place in their teams" etc.)
Table 1: Ordered by BQI
SNo Bowler Bow Cty Mat Wkt Sum of BQI
BatAvge
1.Boje N LSP Saf 43 100 3453.0 34.53
2.Flintoff A RFM Eng 67 197 6652.0 33.77
3.Connolly A.N RFM Aus 29 102 3444.0 33.76
4.Giles A.F LSP Eng 54 143 4812.0 33.65
5.Dillon M RFM Win 38 131 4366.0 33.33
6.Collinge R.O LFM Nzl 35 116 3825.0 32.97
7.Zaheer Khan LFM Ind 53 170 5599.0 32.94
8.Caddick A.R RFM Eng 62 234 7706.0 32.93
9.Hoggard M.J RFM Eng 66 247 8118.0 32.87
10.Martin C.S RFM Nzl 37 125 4086.0 32.69
The list is headed by virtually unknown bowlers. Why does this happen?
Possibly because they do not bowl at the end, picking up tail-end wickets. The other more established bowlers get the opportunity. These bowlers tend to bowl during the middle of the innings.
The other peculiarity is the presence of the three current England bowlers. Here the possible reason is that England has played Australia and India recently and the average of batting averages for these two teams is quite high.
I would be interested in reading comments from interested readers on possible reasons for this peculiar situation.
136.Steyn D.W RFM Saf 20 105 2655.0 25.29
137.Barnes S.F RFM Eng 27 189 4646.0 24.58
138.Blythe C LSP Eng 19 100 2449.0 24.49
139.Wardle J.H LSP Eng 28 102 2416.0 23.69
140.Noble M.A ROB Aus 42 121 2859.0 23.63
141.Turner C.T.B RFM Aus 17 101 2291.0 22.68
142.Giffen G ROB Aus 31 103 2229.0 21.64
143.Peel R LSP Eng 20 102 1960.0 19.22
144.Briggs J LSP Eng 33 118 2025.0 17.16
145.Lohmann G.A RFM Eng 18 112 1755.0 15.67
At the other end of the table we have the pre-World War-I players, indicating very low batting averages for batsmen playing at that time. Dale Steyn is a surprise inclusion, possibly because his last 54 wickets (over 50%) have been against the weaker batting teams of New Zealand, West Indies and Bangladesh, who have lower batting averages.
For a full list, please click here.
However let us seek to address this situation by looking at two other measures. The first is the difference between BQI and the career bowling average for the bowler. While it is true that having a high BQI means that the bowler has picked up better quality wickets, it might be more than offset by a high bowling average, which means the bowler has conceded a lot of runs for each wicket captured. The difference between these two figures will give a clear indication of the bowler's quality. The higher the difference, the better the bowler.
Table 1: Ordered by Difference between BQI and Bowling Average
SNo Bowler Bow Cty BowAvg BQI Diff
1.Marshall M.D RF Win 20.95 30.06 9.11
2.Davidson A.K LFM Aus 20.53 29.51 8.97
3.Ambrose C.E.L RF Win 20.99 29.85 8.86
4.McGrath G.D RFM Aus 21.64 30.43 8.79
5.O'Reilly W.J RLB Aus 22.60 31.12 8.53
6.Barnes S.F RFM Eng 16.43 24.58 8.15
7.Laker J.C ROB Eng 21.25 29.30 8.05
8.Croft C.E.H RF Win 23.30 31.22 7.91
9.Miller K.R RF Aus 22.98 30.65 7.68
10.Adcock N.A.T RF Saf 21.11 28.17 7.07
Ha! The list looks a lot more 'normal'. This is certainly a list of the outstanding bowlers of all time. Again, no mails bringing up other bowlers' names please. These are great bowlers who will stand comparison with anyone outside the list.
136.Giles A.F LSP Eng 40.60 33.65 -6.95
137.Yadav N.S ROB Ind 35.10 28.14 -6.96
138.Wright D.V.P RLB Eng 39.11 31.06 -8.06
139.Boje N LSP Saf 42.65 34.53 -8.12
140.Venkataraghavan S ROB Ind 36.12 27.56 -8.56
141.Emburey J.E ROB Eng 38.41 29.69 -8.71
142.Abdul Razzaq RFM Pak 36.93 27.66 -9.27
143.Shastri R.J LSP Ind 40.96 31.69 -9.27
144.Mohammad Rafique LSP Bng 40.76 31.35 -9.41
145.Hooper C.L ROB Win 49.43 31.52 -17.91
Again, one feels vindicated. Boje is at the end with a huge negative difference. There is no denying that these are bowlers of average skills and in case of Mohammad Rafique, playing for a weak team. The last in this list is Carl Hooper, a very ordinary bowler indeed.
For a full list, please click here.
Another analysis I have done is to consider the number of lower-order wickets taken by a bowler and determine a % of lower-order wickets taken.
Who is a lower-order batsman? For the purpose of this exercise, I have defined it as a batsman batting at positions 8 to 11, and averaging less than 25 [to take care of situations when a Adam Gilchrist or Kapil Dev or Ian Botham might have batted at No. 8 or lower]. Only Daniel Vettori, with a batting average of 26.39, goes out of this classification. But then who can say that Vettori, with two Test centuries, is not an allrounder.
Initially I did this analysis based on batting average. However, that distorted the complete picture since the batting averages of batsmen during pre-WW-I and recently those from Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have been quite low. Hence I have gone back to the batting position.
In addition, any nightwatchman, determined through a proprietary algorithm, is considered as a lower-order batsmen.
Table 3: Ordered by % of lower-order wickets
SNo Bowler Bow Cty Mat Wkts LowOrder Wkts
& %age
1.Zaheer Khan LFM Ind 53 170 23 (13.5)
2.Collinge R.O LFM Nzl 35 116 18 (15.5)
3.Boje N LSP Saf 43 100 16 (16.0)
4.Martin C.S RFM Nzl 37 125 22 (17.6)
5.Edmonds P.H LSP Eng 51 125 22 (17.6)
6.Flintoff A RFM Eng 67 197 36 (18.3)
7.Reid B.A LFM Aus 27 113 21 (18.6)
8.Pathan I.K LFM Ind 28 100 19 (19.0)
9.Intikhab Alam RLB Pak 47 125 24 (19.2)
10.Ghavri K.D LFM Ind 39 109 21 (19.3)
11.Hall W.W RF Win 48 192 37 (19.3)
12.Mushtaq Ahmed RLB Pak 52 185 36 (19.5)
13.Allen D.A ROB Eng 39 122 24 (19.7)
14.Srinath J RFM Ind 67 236 47 (19.9)
15.Thomson J.R RF Aus 51 200 40 (20.0)
This is a very good table, showing bowlers whose tally of lower-order wickets is less than 20% of the career wickets. It shows the value of Zaheer Khan to the Indian attack, as also Flintoff, Martin and Pathan to their respective teams.
134.Vettori D.L LSP Nzl 77 238 81 (34.0)
135.Gupte S.P RLB Ind 36 149 51 (34.2)
136.Rhodes W LSP Eng 58 127 44 (34.6)
137.Mallett A.A ROB Aus 38 132 46 (34.8)
138.Johnson I.W ROB Aus 45 109 39 (35.8)
139.Adams P.R LSP Saf 45 134 48 (35.8)
140.Giffen G ROB Aus 31 103 37 (35.9)
141.MacGill S.C.G RLB Aus 42 203 74 (36.5)
142.Wardle J.H LSP Eng 28 102 38 (37.3)
143.Noble M.A ROB Aus 42 121 47 (38.8)
144.Briggs J LSP Eng 33 118 50 (42.4)
145.Lohmann G.A RFM Eng 18 112 52 (46.4)
At the end of the table, these are bowlers whose tally of lower-order wickets is greater than a third of their total. It looks as if these bowlers have often been brought in to clean up the tail. There are quite a few pre-WW-I bowlers. A surprise is the presence of Vettori and MacGill, especially, who seems to have been brought in to bamboozle the tail despite the presence of other fast bowlers.
For a full list, please click here.
Some possible reader queries are anticipated and answered below.
1. At what individual score does the bowler dismiss the batsman. It is true that, for the fielding team, it is better for a batsman to be dismissed at 10 rather than 100. However, that is a more complex computation and has been done in a different context.
2. Whatever happens, capturing Tendulkar's wicket, even when he is on 100, is invaluable since he is capable of scoring a lot more runs than, say, when Dinesh Kartik has scored 25. It has been assumed that Tendulkar's wicket is Tendulkar's wicket, whatever be his individual score. Also, it might be true, in certain cases, that capturing Brad Haddin's wicket at 10 might be more valuable than capturing Matthew Hayden's wicket when he is at 100.
3. What about current form? While it may be true a few matches back Sehwag's wicket was going quite cheaply, his potential, as shown in the Adelaide Test, can never be underestimated. It is also true that even when Rahul Dravid or Ricky Ponting are going through indifferent form, their wickets are extremely valuable, because of their potential to score big.
Comments (128)
February 15, 2008
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Trivia - bowling
|
|
|
Muttiah Muralitharan: on top of the charts
© AFP
|
|
The post on "Bowler Consistency" received many comments, some silly, some sceptical, some dismissive, some appreciative and some happy at the thinking process it initiated. There were many relevant comments, which warrant a follow-up post.
First of all, an apology to the readers. I used "spell" when I really meant "innings spell". A spell is an uninterrupted stint of bowling. What I really meant was the bowling done during an innings. So I have coined an alternate term called "innspell" which is exactly what it means, the complete bowling effort during an innings, often consisting of multiple spells. Many thanks to the readers who took me to task on this issue.
There were many relevant comments on bowler strike-rates and other pertinent measures such as bowling support, pressure situations, bowling accuracy etc. I do not want to mix up the criteria. Bowler strike-rate is not to be confused with the ability of bowlers to be more consistent. That is one of the most important of bowler measures and warrants a separate post. A similar situation exists with the other measures as well.
I am also determined that I will keep the analysis as simple as when the post started. Finally, one factor should not be forgotten: what I have stated is that if a spin bowler bowls 11 overs or above and takes at least a wicket, this innspell is considered to be a success as compared to a bowler who bowls a similar innspell and comes out wicketless. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this statement.
However the one comment which also impressed me a lot was the suggestion to reward bowlers for taking more than one wicket in an innsspell. Hence I have added a simple linear weightage factor to a successful innsspell. For each wicket captured, a weightage of 10% is given. Thus a 1-wkt capture makes this value as 1.1, 2-wkt capture as 1.2 and so on upto the two 10-wicket captures of Laker and Kumble as 2.0. This tweak should satisfy most readers. The Bowler Consistency Index value is computed as a % of "number of relevant spells x 2.0".
Readers will note that this method will increase the consistency ratings of bowlers who have captured more wickets in their career. An alternative would have been to consider a one-wickett haul to have a value of 1.0 and anything more as 1.1. This would still have left the disparity between insspells which fetched two wickets, and those that fetched more than two.
The most significant comment was that 30 innspells are not sufficient. The lowering of the bar has allowed quite a few relatively insignificant bowlers to walk through at the expense of bowlers who have served for longer periods. Hence I have raised the bar, and considered only the bowlers who have bowled a minimum of 50 innspells, which translates to around 30 Tests, possibly 4-5 years of Test cricket. A total of 143 bowlers have qualified under this criteria compared to 276 bowlers with the lower cut-off.
There were a few (mostly unwarranted) comments on Mervyn Dillon. He has taken 131 wickets in 38 Tests, not a bad haul. Just taking a "wickets per Test" criterion, he is ahead of more well-known bowlers such as Derek Underwood, Kapil Dev, Vaas, Zaheer Khan, Daniel Vettori, Sarfraz Nawaz, Michael Kasprowicz and S Venkataraghavan. Comments should be made only after verifying facts and making allowance for his playing in a weak West Indies team all his career.
The revised table is given below.
Bowler Consistency Analysis (Revised with weightage) - Min 50 relevant spells
<----Innspells---->
SNo Bowler Bow Ctry Mat Relevant Successful BCIdx Wkts Wkt/IS
Total
1.Muralitharan M ROB Slk 118 201 267.3 66.49 723 3.60
2.Grimmett C.V RLB Aus 37 66 84.6 64.09 216 3.27
3.Kumble A RLB Ind 125 215 262.4 61.02 604 2.81
4.Hadlee R.J RFM Nzl 86 138 168.1 60.91 431 3.12
5.Bedi B.S LSP Ind 67 107 129.6 60.56 266 2.49
6.Warne S.K RLB Aus 145 250 302.8 60.56 708 2.83
7.Donald A.A RF Saf 72 124 150.0 60.48 330 2.66
8.Trueman F.S RF Eng 67 115 138.7 60.30 307 2.67
9.Lillee D.K RF Aus 70 124 149.5 60.28 355 2.86
10.Gupte S.P RLB Ind 36 54 64.9 60.09 149 2.76
11.Dillon M RFM Win 38 55 66.1 60.09 131 2.38
12.Imran Khan RF Pak 88 125 150.2 60.08 362 2.90
13.MacGill S.C.G RLB Aus 42 76 91.3 60.07 203 2.67
14.Wasim Akram LFM Pak 104 161 192.4 59.75 414 2.57
15.Danish Kaneria RLB Pak 51 84 100.0 59.52 220 2.62
16.Croft C.E.H RF Win 27 50 59.5 59.50 125 2.50
17.Chandrasekhar B.S RLB Ind 58 87 103.2 59.31 242 2.78
18.Saqlain Mushtaq ROB Pak 49 78 91.8 58.85 208 2.67
19.Gough D RF Eng 58 91 106.9 58.74 229 2.52
20.Laker J.C ROB Eng 46 77 90.3 58.64 193 2.51
21.Trumble H ROB Aus 32 53 62.1 58.58 141 2.66
22.Ambrose C.E.L RF Win 98 164 191.5 58.38 405 2.47
23.Marshall M.D RF Win 81 147 171.6 58.37 376 2.56
24.Bishop I.R RF Win 43 67 78.1 58.28 161 2.40
25.Cork D.G RFM Eng 37 57 66.1 57.98 131 2.30
(Click here for the full table.)
Muralitharan is on top, followed by Grimmett, Kumble, Hadlee and Bedi. This is not a bad quintet. The next five bowlers are Warne, Donald, Trueman, Lillee and Subash Gupte. There should be no complaints there either. The top 25 table now includes most bowling stalwarts, which should satisfy most readers. The weightage of values and raising the cut-off bar has taken away most of the lesser, shorter-duration bowlers.
I have added another variable, the average wickets per innspell, which is indicative of the bowler performance. Muralitharan is way ahead of the other bowlers, having taken 3.6 wickets per innspell. Compare the numbers for some of the other greats. Donald - 2.66, Kumble - 2.81, Pollock - 2.30, Warne - 2.83, Lillee - 2.86 and Ambrose - 2.47. It shows what a wonderful wicket-taking bowler Muralitharan is, even if you concede that the bowler at the other end was not always competing with him in taking wickets. Note also that Flintoff is the only bowler in the top-50 whose wickets per innsspell figure is less than two.
The unfortunate aspect of increasing the cut-off is that this has excluded the pre-World War I all-time greats such as Sydney Barnes, George Lohmann etc. In order to be fair to these great bowlers I have given below a list of five such pre-WW I bowlers.
Barnes S.F RFM Eng 27 48 64.9 67.60 189 3.94
Lohmann G.A RFM Eng 18 32 40.2 62.81 112 3.50
Giffen G ROB Aus 31 35 43.3 61.86 103 2.94
Briggs J LSP Eng 33 42 51.8 61.67 118 2.81
Blythe C LSP Eng 19 35 43.0 61.43 100 2.86
Look at Barnes' wickets per innspell figure - it is higher than Muralitharan's.
Comments (36)
February 8, 2008
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Trivia - bowling
|
|
|
Shane Bond has never gone wicketless in an innings in Test cricket
© Getty Images
|
| The batsmen tend to get analysed lot more and it is now the turn of Test bowlers. Two not-so-normal measures will be discussed in the next two posts.
Bowler consistency
How does one measure a Test bowler's consistency. Complex statistical measures will neither indicate the real consistency nor be understood by all. If I pepper this article with words such as Sigma, Skew, Mean deviation or Variance, I would have lost more than half the readers. What is needed is a cricketing definition of consistency and a simple easy-to-understand methodology which will be understood by all readers.
What makes a consistent bowler? The answer is easy: one who bowls good spells most of the time. How does one define a good spell? There are many definitions, most of which would be too subjective. The only objective measure we have is the "wickets captured" information. The importance of taking wickets in Test matches is also incorporated in this computation.
Taking the 1860-plus Tests which have been played so far, on an average a pace bowler takes a wicket every 66 balls, while the strike-rate for a spinner is 80 balls. At the two extremes are George Lohmann, with a strike-rate of 34, and Carl Hooper with a strike-rate (if you can define it thus) of 120. Taking all these factors into consideration, I have taken 66 balls in an innings for the pace bowlers and 78 balls for spinners as base figures to determine whether a bowler has bowled a relevant spell or not.
First we determine the number of relevant spells, which is defined as an innings in which a bowler has - depending on whether he is a spinner or a fast bowler - bowled at least 78 or 66 balls, or an innings in which the bowler has captured a wicket or more. Then we determine the number of successful spells - the bowling stints in which the bowler has taken at least one wicket. We then derive the Bowler Consistency Index. In ODIs, a wicketless spell, such as Kapil Dev's 7.0-4-4-0 against West Indies could be an outstanding one because of the economy factor, but not in Tests. A bowler such as Bapu Nadkarni in 1964 in Chennai with a spell of 32-27-5-0 would today be booed off, as also Ken Barrington and Brian Bolus, the immobile batsmen.
Let us see the table. These are current upto the fourth test between Australia and India in Adelaide.
Bowler Consistency Analysis - Min 30 spells
No Bowler Bow Team Mat <------Spells-----> Consistency
Relevant Successful Index
1. Bond S.E RFM Nzl 17 30 30 100.00
2. Jones S.P RFM Eng 18 30 30 100.00
3. Reid B.A LFM Aus 27 39 38 97.44
4. Muralitharan M ROB Slk 118 201 195 97.01
5. Miller C.R ROB Aus 18 30 29 96.67
6. Dillon M RFM Win 38 55 53 96.36
7. Bedi B.S LSP Ind 67 107 103 96.26
8. Barnes S.F RFM Eng 27 48 46 95.83
9. Grimmett C.V RLB Aus 37 66 63 95.45
10. Briggs J LSP Eng 33 42 40 95.24
11. Adcock N.A.T RF Saf 26 41 39 95.12
12. Donald A.A RF Saf 72 124 117 94.35
13. Blythe C LSP Eng 19 35 33 94.29
14. Giffen G ROB Aus 31 35 33 94.29
15. Vincent C.L LSP Saf 25 35 33 94.29
16. Flintoff A RFM Eng 67 101 95 94.06
17. Croft C.E.H RF Win 27 50 47 94.00
18. Kumble A RLB Ind 125 215 202 93.95
19. Lever J.K LFM Eng 21 33 31 93.94
20. Trueman F.S RF Eng 67 115 108 93.91
21. Wasim Akram LFM Pak 104 161 151 93.79
22. Steyn D.W RFM Saf 18 32 30 93.75
23. Tauseef Ahmed ROB Pak 34 47 44 93.62
24. Robins R.W.V RLB Eng 19 31 29 93.55
25. MacGill S.C.G RLB Aus 42 76 71 93.42
(Click here for the full table.)
The two injury-prone speedsters Shane Bond and Simon Jones have bowled 30 successful spells in their career, a 100% record. In fact Bond has the unique distinction of never having gone wicketless in an innings in his entire career: his three sub-11-over spells have also been fruitful. Muralitharan has bowled over 200 spells and has gone wicketless in only six of these, which is the very definition of consistency. Then we have a few vintage greats. Bishan Bedi Allan Donald are in the top 15. Andrew Flintoff, Anil Kumble, Wasim Akram and Stuart MacGill are in the top 25.
Note the very high degree of consistency of otherwise pedestrian bowlers like Mervyn Dillon, Colin Miller and Tauseef Ahmed.
Just as a matter of interest, the last five bowlers in this group are listed below. The last two places are filled, as expected, by one part-timer from West Indies, known more for his batting prowess, and an Australian spinner of limited skills.
Julien B.D LSP Win 24 40 27 67.50
Mackay K.D RFM Aus 37 39 26 66.67
Whittall G.J RFM Zim 46 38 25 65.79
Hooper ROB Win 102 99 64 64.65
Bright SLA Aus 25 31 20 64.52
The six unsuccessful spells of Muralitharan are given below. Note the long gap between such rare instances, especially between 1999 and 2006, when he went 55 Tests without missing out even once.
1306 1995 Pak 17.0 3 53 0
1358 1997 Nzl 33.0 6 136 0
1387 1997 Ind 46.0 9 137 0
1416 1998 Nzl 23.0 9 33 0
1474 1999 Zim 24.0 6 51 0
and after 7 years
1796 2006 Pak 13.0 3 46 0
In view of the number of comments made, I have tried to answer these in the blog itself.
1. This is only an "invented" common-sense based analysis. Do not read more into this than that.
2. If we do a list of triple-centurions, we will have Lawrence Rowe, Bob Cowper and John Edrich in that list. We will not have Tendulkar, Dravid, Ponting and Richards there. Does it make them any less greater batsmen. Take this list like that.
3. Maybe 30 spells is too low. It shoud be increased to 50 spells. However I could not resist the temptation to include Bond (for his pure career).
4.What I have written here is a simple definition of consistency which is totally different to strike rate or bowling average or bowling accuracy. If a batsman scores 100 and 0, and another batsman scores 40 and 40, the later would be considered more consistent while the former's average would be higher. Similarly a bowler who has captured 20 wickets in 5 tests at the rate of 4 wickets per test would be considered more consistent than one who captures 8, 0, 8, 0, and 8 wickets even though the later might have captured more wickets at possibly better strike rate.
5. I have used "spell" to denote the bowling effort during an innings for want of a suitable word. A more apt word might be "Innings analysis".
6. The next blog will answer some of the questions raised.
7. A full list of qualifying bowlers will be made available shortly so that readers can check all the bowlers themselves. The list has been mailed individually to readers whose comments indicated a need to look at such a list.
Comments (59)
|
Web Feeds
