June 22, 2009
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Twenty20
ICC World Twenty20 - an analyst's view
|
|
|
Umar Gul's 5 for 6 against New Zealand was by far the best bowling performance of the tournament
© Associated Press
|
| The T20 World Cup has been covered extensively in the Cricinfo Records section and by Rajesh's review. This article looks at the areas not covered by these two excellent reviews. If there is an overlap, worse things have happened.
The first three tables relate to the best Batting and Bowling performances during the World Cup. These are based on the Ratings calculations. As I have already explained, these Ratings calculations are totally different to the Test/ODI Ratings. There I have adopted the bottom-up approach insofar as I determine base points based on runs scored or wickets captured and then apply various multiplicative indices on these base points.
In T20s, I have adopted a top-down approach. The Par Score is determined for each innings, be it the target-setting one or the chasing one. Then the team performance is worked out, to what extent the target score has been exceeded or fallen short, the extent of resources (runs and balls) used and the result. Afterwards, the batting and bowling function contributions are worked out and these allotted points further allotted amongst the batsmen and bowlers of each team. This is the basis for the Maruti-Cricinfo Ratings and more details are available there.
The advantage is that all Rating points are linked to the contribution to the team cause and scoring rates and bowling accuracy are incorporated to their high level of deservedness.
Top 20 Players during the T20 World Cup 2009
No Player Ctry M RtgPts Batting Bowling
1 Shahid Afridi Pak 7 841.36 302.43 + 538.93
2 Bravo D.J Win 6 619.62 260.67 + 358.96
3 Umar Gul Pak 7 585.95 33.92 + 552.02
4 Dilshan T.M Slk 7 540.99 536.56 + 4.43
5 Kallis J.H Saf 5 502.32 334.11 + 168.21
6 Mendis B.A.W Slk 7 500.90 12.10 + 488.80
7 Saeed Ajmal Pak 7 457.70 0.00 + 457.70
8 van der Merwe R.E Saf 6 455.27 7.43 + 447.85
9 Malinga S.L Slk 7 454.47 11.51 + 442.96
10 Gayle C.H Win 5 448.81 308.65 + 140.16
11 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 7 436.80 305.69 + 131.11
12 Simmons L.M.P Win 5 429.77 267.61 + 162.16
13 Muralitharan M Slk 7 418.76 6.02 + 412.74
14 Mathews A.D Slk 7 364.71 151.10 + 213.60
15 Parnell W.D Saf 6 364.09 0.00 + 364.09
16 Steyn D.W Saf 6 360.85 0.00 + 360.85
17 Abdul Razzaq Pak 4 336.75 46.26 + 290.50
18 Mohammad Aamer Pak 7 335.32 0.00 + 335.32
19 McCallan W.K Ire 5 331.66 23.37 + 308.28
20 Broad S.C.J Eng 5 312.40 71.48 + 240.92
These are based on the individual batting and bowling performances during the World Cup.
There is no doubt that Shahid Afridi was the most influential player, by a few miles, during the World Cup. He is ahead of Dwayne Bravo by over 200 points. Umar Gul is third and Dilshan is fourth, followed by kallis. The award to Dilshan was probably a sympathy vote. It cannot be justified otherwise.
This table is a subsequent addition based on a reader comment and should have rightfully been there at the beginning itself.
1. Top 20 Bowling performances during the T20 World Cup 2009
No MtId Year Player Name For Vs <-Analysis-> RtgPts
1.0107 2009 Umar Gul Pak Nzl 3.0-0- 6-5 226.1 Won
2.0099 2009 van der Merwe R.E Saf Nzl 4.0-0-14-2 133.8 Won
3.0116 2009 Abdul Razzaq Pak Slk 3.0-0-20-3 133.6 Won
4.0114 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Saf 4.0-0-16-2 130.0 Won
5.0103 2009 Parnell W.D Saf Eng 3.5-0-14-3 119.6 Won
6.0104 2009 Malinga S.L Slk Pak 4.0-0-17-3 118.9 Won
7.0107 2009 Abdul Razzaq Pak Nzl 3.3-1-17-2 118.8 Won
8.0112 2009 Mendis B.A.W Slk Nzl 3.0-0- 9-3 117.2 Won
9.0113 2009 Botha J Saf Ind 4.0-0-16-3 112.0 Won
10.0115 2009 Mendis B.A.W Slk Win 4.0-0- 9-2 109.3 Won
11.0098 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Hol 4.0-0-11-4 108.5 Won
12.0101 2009 Khan Z Ind Ire 3.0-0-19-4 106.7 Won
13.0110 2009 Saeed Ajmal Pak Ire 4.0-0-19-4 106.2 Won
14.0105 2009 Bravo D.J Win Ind 4.0-0-38-4 105.0 Won
15.0102 2009 McCullum N.L Nzl Ire 3.0-0-15-3 104.4 Won
16.0096 2009 Johnston D.T Ire Bng 4.0-0-20-3 104.0 Won
17.0111 2009 Bravo D.J Win Eng 4.0-0-30-2 103.8 Won
18.0106 2009 Parnell W.D Saf Win 4.0-0-13-4 102.2 Won
19.0099 2009 Butler I.G Nzl Saf 4.0-0-13-2 102.0
20.0105 2009 Edwards F.H Win Ind 4.0-0-24-3 100.8 Won
Umar Gul's amazing 5 for 6 (possibly equivalent to Vaas' 8 for 19 in ODIs) leads by such a huge margin that it is very likely that this would remain the best T20 bowling performance for years to come. The quality of wickets and the bowling accuracy are unbelievable.
The MOM award to van dear Merwe's economical spell against New Zealand surprised me until I found out that this is rated as the second best bowling performance. The bowling economy was aided by the two key wickets, that too in a low-scoring game.
Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa, who were the best bowling teams in the tournament, monopolize the top-10 positions. Zaheer Khan, McCullum, Bravo and Broad lead for their respective countries.
2. Top 20 batting performances during the T20 World Cup 2009
No MtId Year Player Name For Vs Runs Balls RtgPts
1.0092 2009 Gayle C.H Win Aus 88 50 182.8 Won
2.0115 2009 Dilshan T.M Slk Win 96 57 151.7 Won
3.0100 2009 Jayasuriya S.T Slk Win 81 47 151.4 Won
4.0106 2009 Simmons L.M.P Win Saf 77 50 137.0
5.0100 2009 Dilshan T.M Slk Win 74 47 132.0 Won
6.0105 2009 Bravo D.J Win Ind 66 36 128.8 Won
7.0116 2009 Sangakkara K.C Slk Pak 64 52 115.6
8.0092 2009 Fletcher A.D.S Win Aus 53 32 111.8 Won
9.0091 2009 Ryder J.D Nzl Sco 31 12 111.8 Won
10.0108 2009 Jayawardene D.P.M.D Slk Ire 78 53 111.5 Won
11.0094 2009 de Villiers A.B Saf Sco 79 34 109.5 Won
12.0102 2009 Redmond A.J Nzl Ire 63 30 106.4 Won
13.0116 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Slk 54 40 105.0 Won
14.0105 2009 Yuvraj Singh Ind Win 67 43 100.8
15.0114 2009 Kallis J.H Saf Pak 64 54 97.2
16.0097 2009 Dilshan T.M Slk Aus 53 32 96.4 Won
17.0109 2009 Pietersen K.P Eng Ind 46 27 95.8 Won
18.0106 2009 Gibbs H.H Saf Win 55 35 92.8 Won
19.0114 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Saf 51 34 91.2 Won
20.0095 2009 Pietersen K.P Eng Pak 58 38 90.2 Won
Readers might wonder why Gayle's innings is rated higher than Dilshan's semi-final classic. The reason is that it was a high-pressure chasing innings, the Australian bowling attack was, on paper, much stronger and the result was a much closer one. If Gayle had failed, West Indies would have lost. If Dilshan had scored 30 runs fewer, Sri Lanka might very well have won.
The Top-10 table has 9 entries from the Sri Lankan and West Indian batsmen, with Dilshan accounting for two. The other entry is the surprising cameo of Ryder. Ryder's inclusion is a vindication of the Ratings methodology in that a match-winning cameo's importance in a shortened match with a stiff run-chase has been recognised.
de Villiers' explosive 79, Yuvraj's innings against West Indies, Afridi's top-class 50 against Sri Lanka and Pietersen's cameo against India lead for their respective countries.
3. 10-over analysis: by second half progress
No.I MtId Team Score Vs Runs
1.1 0094 Saf 88/2 to 211/ 5 (20.0) vs Sco 123 Won
2.1 0092 Aus 63/3 to 169/ 7 (20.0) vs Win 106 Lost
3.1 0102 Nzl 94/2 to 198/ 5 (20.0) vs Ire 104 Won
4.1 0093 Ind 76/1 to 180/ 5 (20.0) vs Bng 104 Won
5.1 0105 Ind 54/3 to 153/ 7 (20.0) vs Win 99 Lost
6.1 0106 Saf 86/1 to 183/ 7 (20.0) vs Win 97 Won
7.2 0100 Win 81/4 to 177/ 5 (20.0) vs Slk 96 Lost
8.1 0095 Eng 90/2 to 185/ 5 (20.0) vs Pak 95 Won
9.2 0105 Win 61/2 to 156/ 3 (18.4) vs Ind 95 Won
10.1 0098 Pak 81/2 to 175/ 5 (20.0) vs Hol 94 Won
...
...
...
47.2 0098 Hol 53/4 to 93/10 (17.3) vs Pak 40 Lost
48.2 0101 Ind 75/0 to 113/ 2 (15.3) vs Ire 38 Won
49.2 0112 Nzl 77/4 to 110/10 (17.0) vs Slk 33 Lost
50.2 0094 Sco 50/6 to 81/10 (15.4) vs Saf 31 Lost
51.2 0107 Pak 73/4 to 100/ 4 (13.1) vs Nzl 27 Won
South Africa leads the pack with an immense advance of 123 runs, albeit against Scotland. Australia advanced by over 100 runs against West Indies, but lost. New Zealand and India advanced by over 100 runs against weak teams. Note West Indies' progress against Sri Lanka for the loss of only one wicket.
4. 10-over analysis: by 10-over score
No.I MtId Team 10-over score
1.2 0092 Win 121/0 vs Aus Won
2.1 0100 Slk 105/0 vs Win Won
3.1 0102 Nzl 94/2 vs Ire Won
4.2 0090 Hol 91/3 vs Eng Won
5.1 0095 Eng 90/2 vs Pak Won
6.1 0090 Eng 89/0 vs Hol Lost
7.1 0094 Saf 88/2 vs Sco Won
8.2 0097 Slk 86/2 vs Aus Won
9.1 0106 Saf 86/1 vs Win Won
10.1 0104 Slk 86/1 vs Pak Won
...
...
...
47.2 0098 Hol 53/4 vs Pak Lost
48.2 0094 Sco 50/6 vs Saf Lost
49.2 0103 Saf 50/1 vs Eng Won
50.1 0101 Ire 48/5 vs Ind Lost
51.1 0103 Eng 47/3 vs Saf Lost
Only two teams crossed 100 runs in 10 overs, surprisingly both against top teams, and both without losing a wicket. For me the most amazing entry here is England's 89 for no loss against Holland, looking likely to score 200, adding only 73 in the next 10 overs and losing.
5. Table of 20-run overs
No MtId I For Bowler Name Vs O Runs % Scr Max
1.0092 2 Aus Lee B Win 5 27 15.7% 15
2.0091 2 Sco Stander J.H Nzl 6 22 24.4% 6
3.0094 1 Sco Watson R.R Saf 17 22 10.4% 20
4.0094 1 Sco Stander J.H Saf 5 21 10.0% 20
5.0095 1 Pak Yasir Arafat Eng 5 21 11.4% 20
6.0097 1 Slk Muralitharan M Aus 16 21 13.2% 20
7.0096 1 Ire Cusack A.R Bng 20 20 14.6% 20
8.0091 2 Sco Wright C.M Nzl 3 20 22.2% 6
9.0100 1 Win Edwards F.H Slk 10 20 10.4% 20
10.0110 1 Ire Johnston D.T Pak 4 20 12.6% 20
11.0112 2 Slk Jayasuriya S.T Nzl 2 20 18.2% 17
Brett Lee's disastrous over against West Indies, signalling the slide of Australia, was the most expensive of the World Cup. Stander is the only bowler to have delivered two 20-plus overs. Muralitharan is the surprise bowler in this list.
6. Great finishes: by runs scored during last 5 overs
No I MtNo Team Max Runs
1. 1 0094 Saf 128 to 211 (20.0) 83 vs Sco Won
2. 1 0093 Ind 113 to 180 (20.0) 67 vs Bng Won
3. 1 0097 Aus 94 to 159 (20.0) 65 vs Slk Lost
4. 1 0098 Pak 115 to 175 (20.0) 60 vs Hol Won
5. 1 0115 Slk 98 to 158 (20.0) 60 vs Win Won
6. 1 0116 Slk 79 to 138 (20.0) 59 vs Pak Lost
7. 1 0102 Nzl 140 to 198 (20.0) 58 vs Ire Won
8. 1 0092 Aus 111 to 169 (20.0) 58 vs Win Lost
9. 1 0105 Ind 97 to 153 (20.0) 56 vs Win Lost
10. 2 0109 Ind 94 to 150 (20.0) 56 vs Eng Lost
The top two last 5-over blitzes are by the top teams against weak teams. The real move came in the Australia match against Sri Lanka, although they lost the match. Sri Lanka had a similar spurt against West Indies, and won. India had two great finishes but lost both matches. Note also that West Indies has conceded 55-plus runs three times during the last 5 overs. The first 9 finishes are in the first innings.
Note entries 5 and 6. Sri Lanka had two great finishes. The first took them to the final but the second was not enough to win the final.
7. The slow innings (Minimum 20 balls)
No MtId Player Name For Runs Balls S/R Vs
1.0105 Dhoni M.S Ind 11 23 47.8 Win
2.0115 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 24 37 64.9 Win Won
3.0096 Raqibul Hasan Bng 13 20 65.0 Ire
4.0099 Taylor R.L Nzl 22 31 71.0 Saf
5.0109 Jadeja R.A Ind 25 35 71.4 Eng
6.0098 Kervezee A.N Hol 21 29 72.4 Pak
7.0104 2009 Misbah-ul-Haq Pak 21 28 75.0 Slk
8.0094 2009 Haq R.M Sco 15 20 75.0 Saf
9.0107 2009 Styris S.B Nzl 22 29 75.9 Pak
10.0096 2009 Tamim Iqbal Bng 22 28 78.6 Ire
Dhoni's lacklustre effort against West Indies, leading this pack of forgettable innings, was one of the reasons for that loss and is indicative of his loss of form and confidence. Despite the WC 2007 win it is obvious that India in general and Dhoni in particular have not mastered the T20 game. Dhoni himself plays the T20 matches often like an ODI matches. Incidentally Dhoni's is the only innings with a 1970s Test match strike rate of below 50.
In hindsight, Jayasuriya's slow innings, which looked bad when watched live, looks like a far better innings than to seemed because of the excellent opening partnership and it allowed Dilshan to play the way he played. This is also the only match which was won.
Enough has been written about Jadeja's incomprehensible innings. The mistake was not his, he was unfortunately put in that situation.
8. Great all-round displays (>20 runs and 1+ wicket(s)
No MtId Year Player Name For Vs Runs <-Analysis->
1.0105 2009 Bravo D.J Win Ind 66 (36) 4.0-0-38-4 Won
2.0100 2009 Simmons L.M.P Win Slk 29 (19) 3.0-0-19-4
3.0103 2009 Kallis J.H Saf Eng 57 (49) 3.0-0-20-2 Won
4.0114 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Saf 51 (34) 4.0-0-16-2 Won
5.0116 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Slk 54 (40) 4.0-0-20-1 Won
6.0096 2009 Mashrafe Mortaza Bng Ire 33 (16) 4.0-0-30-2
7.0093 2009 Naeem Islam Bng Ind 28 (17) 3.0-0-32-2
8.0109 2009 Jadeja R.A Ind Eng 25 (35) 4.0-0-26-2
9.0094 2009 Morkel J.A Saf Sco 24 (11) 1.4-0-15-2 Won
10.0090 2009 ten Doeschate R.N Hol Eng 22 (17) 4.0-0-35-2 Won
11.0102 2009 Cusack A.R Ire Nzl 20 (12) 4.0-0-43-2
12.0107 2009 Shahid Afridi Pak Nzl 29 (18) 4.0-0-17-1 Won
13.0099 2009 Kallis J.H Saf Nzl 24 (23) 3.0-0-17-1 Won
Bravo's all-round excellence against India is unmatched and the best in T20 history. A furious 50 and 4 wickets, unbelievable. Lendl Simmons' wonderful performance, unfortunately, was not enough to win. Note also that Shahid Afridi has three all-round displays. It is interesting to note that many of these all-round performances have finished on the losing side. Also of interest is that Jadeja, barring the 15 dot balls, had a pretty good match against England.
9. Team performance summary
Irrespective of the Final result, we should consider the two finalists as the two top teams. The winner, Pakistan, the best T-20 team in the world, should be the first amongst these two equals.
Similarly the four teams which exited after the preliminary league should be dumped at the end, with Netherlands, with an excellent win over England, being the first amongst these four teams.
The other six teams are led by South Africa and followed by West Indies, England, New Zealand, Ireland and India in that order based on their performances.
The exit of India, no doubt causing huge losses to the Indian corporates and Indian players, however, rejuvenated the tournament since it enabled the emphasis to return to the game, brought to the forefront less-fancied but gifted teams and a level of media tranquility. The two finalists epitomised what is right with the game. They richly deserved their places and Pakistan, a single hit away from winning the 2007 final, were most deserving winners.
My next posting will be the follow-up article to the Test Batsmen one.
Comments (28)
June 4, 2009
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Twenty20
T20 Internationals - an analytical review
|
|
|
Brendon McCullum: The leading run-scorer in Twenty20 internationals
© Getty Images
|
| 1. Potpourri of T20 information
Given below are some interesting facts. Detailed tables for these can be viewed using Cricinfo's Statistics section.
1. McCullum is the leading run-scorer with 582 runs.
2. Symonds has the highest strike rate amongst batsman who have scored 100 runs. He has a strike rate of 169.35 while scoring 337 runs.
3. Jayasuriya has secured 5 MOM awards.
4. Umar Gul has captured the maximum wickets, 24 in all.
5. Ray Price (Zimbabwe) has the best economy rates among bowlers who have bowled 10 overs. His economy rate is 3.25.
6. Gayle is the only batsman to have scored a century. His score was 117.
7. Yuvraj's innings of 58 in 16 balls is the fastest in T20s.
8. Gillespie (New Zealand) has the best bowling figures, 2.5-0-7-4.
9. Cusack (Ireland) has the most accurate bowling analysis in T20s, 3.0-1-3-2.
10. Anderson (England) has the most expensive bowling T20 bowling spell ever, 4-0-64-1.
11. Sri Lanka has scored the highest total in T20s, 260 against Kenya.
12. Kenya, in addition to above, also has the lowest innings total against Ireland, a paltry 67.
13. South Africa chased a total of 205 made by West Indies.
14. Ireland defended a total of 43 (9 overs) against Bermuda.
For the 2007 World Cup, the significant top performers are listed below.
1. The maximum runs were scored by Hayden with 265.
2. The best Runs per Innings figure was Hayden's 44.17 in 6 innings, including 4 x 50s.
3. The best strike rate was Yuvraj Singh's 1.947 (148 runs in 76 balls).
4. Umar Gul captured the maximum wickets, having accounted for 13 dismissals.
5. The best bowling average was achieved by Chigumbura of Zimbabwe who captured 7 wickets at 7.29.
6. Vettori bowled most economically with a RPO figure of 5.33 in 24 overs.
2. A re-look at the Par Score
Sometime back I had a look at the Par Score for T20s in which I had suggested a Par Score as 165. I had increased this to 170+ for the sub-continent. I have looked at this again, only for the 25 matches of the World Cup. Looking at the 12 teams which scored 160 and above, 8 teams won defending such totals while 4 totals were chased successfully. This gives a very reasonable 66.7% winning chance and 160 can very well be taken as a Par Score for this World Cup, which will be played in England. On the other hand, increasing the Par Score to 165 gives the teams a chance to win in 7 out of 8 (87.5%). So I would say that the Par Score should be between 160-165. 160 should be sufficient, the few extra runs increase the chances of winning significantly.
3. T20-Intls: Analysis of 20-over runs conceded and wickets captured
Ov Num Runs Max Avge SD SEM Wkts Avge SD SEM
# Overs
1 174.0 1004 19 5.77 3.47 0.26 40 0.23 0.46 0.03
2 174.0 1199 25 6.89 4.69 0.36 42 0.24 0.49 0.04
3 174.0 1333 18 7.66 4.52 0.34 57 0.33 0.56 0.04
4 174.0 1319 20 7.58 4.82 0.37 54 0.31 0.51 0.04
5 174.0 1466 22 8.43 4.86 0.37 37 0.21 0.46 0.04
6 173.5 1376 21 7.92 4.83 0.37 67 0.39 0.58 0.04
7 173.0 1137 22 6.57 3.94 0.30 47 0.27 0.48 0.04
8 172.4 1163 24 6.74 3.95 0.30 49 0.28 0.50 0.04
9 172.0 1077 19 6.26 3.61 0.28 49 0.28 0.52 0.04
10 169.0 1157 20 6.85 3.92 0.30 45 0.27 0.52 0.04
11 166.5 1090 19 6.53 3.65 0.28 60 0.36 0.54 0.04
12 163.5 1191 18 7.27 4.28 0.33 48 0.29 0.49 0.04
13 163.0 1234 25 7.57 4.64 0.36 52 0.32 0.53 0.04
14 161.5 1099 21 6.79 4.07 0.32 63 0.39 0.57 0.04
15 157.2 1181 24 7.51 4.45 0.35 63 0.40 0.53 0.04
16 155.5 1253 26 8.04 5.32 0.43 58 0.37 0.59 0.05
17 152.1 1280 21 8.41 5.04 0.41 71 0.47 0.66 0.05
18 147.0 1145 24 7.79 4.92 0.40 70 0.48 0.57 0.05
19 132.0 1184 36 8.97 6.08 0.52 76 0.58 0.71 0.06
20 109.3 1052 21 9.61 4.96 0.45 105 0.96 0.84 0.08
A new statistical measure, suggested by Aneesh Kulkarni, the Standard Error of the Mean (SEM) has been taken. This measure is a function of the Standard Deviation and the number of samples, in this case the number of overs. The SD and SEM are related measures. The SD refers to the actual values (could range from 0 to 36) while the SEM refers to the expected variation of the mean values. Readers can contribute, if they want, on this measure.
a. There is a spurt in the second over, indicating that the first over was used to get the bearings. There is marked spurt in the 5th over, possibly because the batsmen take couple of overs to familiarize themselves and cut loose in anticipation of the removal of the fielding restrictions.
b. There seems to be no significant change between the 10th and 11th over since there is no artificial commercial break after the 10th over.
c. There seems to be a steady move in the later overs. However the 14th over shows an unexpected dip. Why, I cannot tell.
d. There is a major move in wickets lost between 5th and 6th overs, a clear case of batsmen chancing their arms. The significant increase in the 20th over is again understandable.
4. T20-Intls: Comparison of 20-over figures between First and Second inns
Ovr First Innings Second Innings First Inns Second Inns
# Runs Runs Wkts Wkts
1 (87.0 525) 6.03 5.51 (87.0 479) 20 0.23 20 0.23
2 (87.0 545) 6.26 7.52 (87.0 654) 26 0.30 16 0.18
3 (87.0 688) 7.91 7.41 (87.0 645) 24 0.28 33 0.38
4 (87.0 675) 7.76 7.40 (87.0 644) 29 0.33 25 0.29
5 (87.0 685) 7.87 8.98 (87.0 781) 19 0.22 18 0.21
6 (87.0 673) 7.74 8.10 (86.5 703) 31 0.36 36 0.41
7 (87.0 542) 6.23 6.92 (86.0 595) 26 0.30 21 0.24
8 (87.0 608) 6.99 6.48 (85.4 555) 28 0.32 21 0.25
9 (87.0 568) 6.53 5.99 (85.0 509) 24 0.28 25 0.29
10 (86.0 606) 7.05 6.64 (83.0 551) 29 0.34 16 0.19
11 (86.0 608) 7.07 5.96 (80.5 482) 32 0.37 28 0.35
12 (85.0 644) 7.58 6.94 (78.5 547) 23 0.27 25 0.32
13 (85.0 647) 7.61 7.53 (78.0 587) 24 0.28 28 0.36
14 (84.0 578) 6.88 6.69 (77.5 521) 36 0.43 27 0.35
15 (83.0 597) 7.19 7.86 (74.2 584) 36 0.43 27 0.36
16 (83.0 729) 8.78 7.19 (72.5 524) 31 0.37 27 0.37
17 (82.5 673) 8.12 8.75 (69.2 607) 45 0.54 26 0.38
18 (79.5 625) 7.83 7.74 (67.1 520) 42 0.53 28 0.42
19 (78.0 736) 9.44 8.30 (54.0 448) 53 0.68 23 0.43
20 (73.2 706) 9.63 9.57 (36.1 346) 71 0.97 34 0.94
Total 7.50 7.29 0.38 0.33
The first innings average for both runs per over and wickets per over are slightly higher for obvious reasons, the absence of a specific target. In the second innings the target is known and only the required runs are scored and unnecessary risks not taken.
a. The first real difference comes in the 2nd over. For some strange reason the chasing teams have averaged 25% more than the first batting teams. Why, I cannot put my fingers on one reason.
b. Similar in the 5th over where contrary to what I would have expected, the chasing teams have outscored the first batting teams. Possibly the uncertainty of the first innings caused this. For the first 6 overs, the chasing team has an additional 2 runs (45+ against 43+). No great difference.
c. The rest of the stats show usual fluctuations other than the 19th over where the first batting team is over a run ahead of the chasing team. Yuvraj Singh's 36-run over has contributed 0.3 of this run.
d. There is no great difference in average wickets other than the over 3 (chasing team 30% more), over 10 (first batting team nearly double of chasing team) and over 19 (first batting team 35% more). The later is explainable what with the batsmen throwing their bats around in the first innings and slowing down nearing the target in the second. In addition, it is also possible that the matches are won or lost by the 19th over.
5. T20-Intls: Comparison of 20-over figures between T20s and IPL
Ov T20-Interntionals IPL-2009 matches T20-Intls IPL-2009
# Runs Runs Wkts Wkts
1 (174.0 1004) 5.77 5.55 (114.0 633) 40 0.23 38 0.33
2 (174.0 1199) 6.89 6.73 (114.0 767) 42 0.24 33 0.29
3 (174.0 1333) 7.66 7.20 (114.0 821) 57 0.33 26 0.23
4 (174.0 1319) 7.58 7.73 (114.0 881) 54 0.31 26 0.23
5 (174.0 1466) 8.43 8.10 (113.5 922) 37 0.21 31 0.27
6 (173.5 1376) 7.92 7.98 (113.0 902) 67 0.39 33 0.29
7 (173.0 1137) 6.57 5.66 (113.0 640) 47 0.27 30 0.27
8 (172.4 1163) 6.74 6.65 (113.0 752) 49 0.28 17 0.15
9 (172.0 1077) 6.26 6.88 (113.0 778) 49 0.28 27 0.24
10 (169.0 1157) 6.85 6.10 (112.2 685) 45 0.27 33 0.29
11 (166.5 1090) 6.53 6.51 (112.0 729) 60 0.36 30 0.27
12 (163.5 1191) 7.27 7.31 (112.0 819) 48 0.29 26 0.23
13 (163.0 1234) 7.57 7.23 (111.0 802) 52 0.32 27 0.24
14 (161.5 1099) 6.79 7.46 (110.1 822) 63 0.39 30 0.27
15 (157.2 1181) 7.51 7.94 (109.4 871) 63 0.40 36 0.33
16 (155.5 1253) 8.04 8.17 (105.5 865) 58 0.37 45 0.43
17 (152.1 1280) 8.41 9.15 (104.2 955) 71 0.47 43 0.41
18 (147.0 1145) 7.79 9.60 (102.2 982) 70 0.48 47 0.46
19 (132.0 1184) 8.97 8.98 ( 96.2 865) 76 0.58 44 0.46
20 (109.3 1052) 9.61 10.01 ( 82.5 829) 105 0.96 77 0.93
Total 7.39 7.49 0.36 0.32
It must be remembered that the T20s have had matches played across the world, between many different levels of teams and do not have the 10th over long commercial break.
a. The IPL matches have a slightly higher run-rate as well as slightly lower wickets per over also. Possibly the better quality of players?
b. Not so surprisingly the T20 and IPL have almost similar values barring one over, the 18th. IPL rate is ahead by 20%. Over 10, which had a greater significance for IPL than T20s, there is no variance at all.
c. The two opening overs have shown a much higher quantum of wickets being captured. Understandable since IPL was played in South Africa while the T20s have been played in batsmen-friendly pitches across the world. There seems to be a greater number of wickets in the 6th over in T20s than IPL indicating that in the T20s teams have opted for steadier starts but have tried to speed up just before the fielding restrictions end.
6. T20-Intls: 10 over scores - runs scored
SNo. I MtId Year Team 10Overs Final score vs %adv Rns Rslt
1. 1 0013 2007 Aus 117/2 to 221/ 5 (20.0) Eng 1.89 104 Won
2. 1 0020 2007 Win 109/0 to 205/ 6 (20.0) Saf 1.88 96 Lost
3. 2 0014 2007 Saf 107/0 to 132/ 0 (11.3) Pak 1.23 25 Won
4. 2 0020 2007 Saf 106/2 to 208/ 2 (17.4) Win 1.96 102 Won
5. 1 0079 2008 Nzl 106/0 to 191/ 9 (20.0) Win 1.80 85 Won
6. 2 0057 2008 Win 102/3 to 102/ 3 ( 9.1) Aus 1.00 0 Won
7. 1 0027 2007 Slk 101/2 to 260/ 6 (20.0) Ken 2.57 159 Won
8. 1 0080 2009 Aus 101/2 to 182/ 9 (20.0) Saf 1.80 81 Won
9. 1 0011 2006 Nzl 101/2 to 162/ 8 (20.0) Slk 1.60 61 Lost
10. 2 0047 2007 Ind 101/1 to 167/ 3 (18.1) Aus 1.65 66 Won
11. 2 0024 2007 Bng 100/2 to 165/ 4 (18.0) Win 1.65 65 Won
...
...
...
168. 1 0021 2007 Ken 38/5 to 73/10 (16.5) Nzl 1.92 35 Lost
169. 2 0064 2008 Ire 34/2 to 72/ 6 (19.1) Ken 2.12 38 Won
170. 1 0067 2008 Ber 33/5 to 70/10 (20.0) Can 2.12 37 Lost
171. 1 0050 2007 Saf 28/7 to 58/ 8 (13.0) Win 2.07 30 Lost
172. 2 0075 2008 Can 27/4 to 75/10 (19.2) Zim 2.78 48 Lost
Even though the 10-over mark is not significant in T20 International matches, there being no Commercial(-cum-strategic) break, I have determined the 10-over scores to do a similar analysis as IPL. After all 10 overs represents the mid point and is an ideal point for taking stock.
a. There have been quite a few instances of teams having reached 100 runs during the first 10 overs, 11 to be precise. This has been distributed over a number of teams, Pakistan and England excepted.
b. Not all teams have taken advantage of this great start. Australia and Sri Lanka have capitalized on the start very well. Couple of teams who crossed 100 in 10 overs have also lost.
c. A few teams have scored fewer than 40 runs in the first 10 overs and have lost. The only exception is the Ireland which, however, was chasing only a paltry total of 67 by Kenya.
7. T20-Intls: 10 over scores - % of runs advanced in second 10 overs
SNo. I MtId Year Team 10Overs Final score vs %adv Rns Rslt
1. 1 0045 2007 Ind 60/2 to 188/ 5 (20.0) Aus 3.13 128 Won
2. 2 0081 2009 Aus 56/2 to 161/ 4 (18.5) Saf 2.88 105 Won
3. 2 0075 2008 Can 27/4 to 75/10 (19.2) Zim 2.78 48 Lost
4. 1 0036 2007 Nzl 60/4 to 164/ 9 (20.0) Eng 2.73 104 Won
5. 1 0035 2007 Pak 69/3 to 189/ 6 (20.0) Slk 2.74 120 Won
6. 1 0051 2008 Win 48/3 to 131/ 7 (20.0) Saf 2.73 83 Lost
7. 1 0023 2007 Aus 51/4 to 138/ 9 (20.0) Zim 2.71 87 Lost
8. 2 0049 2007 Nzl 49/6 to 132/10 (18.3) Aus 2.69 83 Lost
9. 1 0043 2007 Ind 57/3 to 153/ 5 (20.0) Saf 2.68 96 Won
10. 2 0029 2007 Pak 53/4 to 141/ 7 (20.0) Ind 2.66 88 Lost
11. 1 0081 2009 Saf 59/3 to 157/ 5 (20.0) Aus 2.66 98 Lost
12. 1 0027 2007 Slk 101/2 to 260/ 6 (20.0) Ken 2.57 159 Won
13. 1 0038 2007 Slk 57/3 to 147/ 5 (20.0) Bng 2.58 90 Won
14. 1 0022 2007 Pak 67/3 to 171/ 9 (20.0) Sco 2.55 104 Won
15. 1 0049 2007 Aus 73/3 to 186/ 6 (20.0) Nzl 2.55 113 Won
16. 2 0059 2008 Ire 47/2 to 118/ 6 (19.5) Sco 2.51 71 Won
17. 2 0039 2007 Saf 63/3 to 158/ 4 (19.1) Nzl 2.51 95 Won
18. 1 0032 2007 Nzl 77/2 to 190/10 (20.0) Ind 2.47 113 Won
19. 2 0071 2008 Zim 55/4 to 135/ 9 (20.0) Can 2.45 80 Lost
20. 1 0008 2006 Eng 59/4 to 144/ 7 (20.0) Pak 2.44 85 Lost
a. India tripled their score at the 10-over mark, and won. They also added 128 runs against the quality Australian attack. Sri Lanka have scored the maximum number of runs during the second 10 overs, battering the hapless Kenyans to the tune of 159 runs (yes, a rate of 15.9 rpo).
8. T20-Intls: T20 Batting Index (Min 5 batting innings)
No Batsman Ctry Inns Runs R/Inns StRt BatIdx
1 Gayle C.H Win 7 261 37.29 161.1 60.07
2 Warner D.A Aus 5 177 35.40 155.3 54.96
3 Symonds A Aus 11 337 30.64 169.3 51.88
4 Masakadza H Zim 7 258 36.86 135.8 50.05
5 Hayden M.L Aus 9 308 34.22 143.9 49.25
6 Yuvraj Singh Ind 9 262 29.11 164.8 47.97
7 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 11 341 31.00 154.3 47.83
8 McMillan C.D Nzl 7 187 26.71 159.8 42.70
9 Smith D.S Win 5 166 33.20 123.9 41.13
10 Samuels M.N Win 6 131 21.83 177.0 38.65
11 Smith G.C Saf 12 364 30.33 127.3 38.61
12 Oram J.D.P Nzl 12 293 24.42 156.7 38.26
13 Gambhir G Ind 11 328 29.82 126.6 37.76
14 Duminy J.P Saf 10 279 27.90 133.5 37.24
15 Misbah-ul-Haq Pak 14 422 30.14 122.7 36.98
16 Kemp J.M Saf 7 203 29.00 126.9 36.79
17 Hussey D.J Aus 7 181 25.86 141.4 36.56
18 Pietersen K.P Eng 15 375 25.00 144.2 36.06
19 Ponting R.T Aus 14 376 26.86 131.5 35.31
20 McCullum B.B Nzl 21 582 27.71 125.4 34.76
This is a measure which encompasses in a single number the two significant characteristics of T20 batting, (viz), the runs scored and the strike rate. In order to take away the effects of not outs, in any case Batting average in T20 is a non-starter, only Runs per Innings is used. A minimum of 5 batting innings are used to select batsmen.
The measure is a product of the Runs/Innings figure by Strike Rate. This is an excellent measure to determine the batsman's contribution. Longevity does not come into the picture at all.
Gayle, with a Runs/Inns figure of 37.29 and strike rate of 1.611 has an excellent Bat index value of 60.07 and leads by a good margin against the new sensation from Australia, David warner, who has figures of 35.4 and 1.553 leading to 54.96. Third is the incomparable Andrew Symonds, with figures of 34.10 and 1.543, getting a Bat index of 52.62.
The unheralded Masakadza, playing for an unfancied team is the surprising presence at no.4, with an excellent Bat index value of over 50. Yuvraj Singh is the leading Indian and Misbah-ul-Haq, the leading Pakistani batsmen.
9. T20-Intls: % of boundaries in an innings (innings minimum - 50 runs)
No MtId Year Player Name For Runs Balls S/R 4-6s % vs
1.0040 2007 Yuvraj Singh Ind 58 16 362.5 54 93.1% Eng
2.0011 2006 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 51 23 221.7 46 90.2% Nzl
3.0049 2007 Oram J.D.P Nzl 66 31 212.9 56 84.8% Aus
4.0014 2007 Smith G.C Saf 71 40 177.5 60 84.5% Pak
5.0079 2008 McCullum B.B Nzl 59 34 173.5 48 81.4% Win
6.0043 2007 Sharma R.G Ind 50 40 125.0 40 80.0% Saf
7.0027 2007 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 88 44 200.0 68 77.3% Ken
8.0018 2007 Nazimuddin Bng 81 50 162.0 62 76.5% Pak
9.0074 2008 Rizwan Cheema Can 68 43 158.1 52 76.5% Slk
10.0020 2007 Gibbs H.H Saf 90 55 163.6 68 75.6% Win
...
14.0020 2007 Gayle C.H Win 117 57 205.3 88 75.2% Saf
Yuvraj Singh is on top, because of his 6-sixes over off Broad. An astounding 93% of his runs were scored in 4s and 6s. Jayasuriya's 90% follows next and then comes Oram's 85%.
The maximum runs in boundaries in an innings is by Gayle who scored 88 runs off his score of 117 in boundaries. Unfortunately West Indies lost the match.
10. T20-Intls: Overs in which 20 or more runs were conceded
No MtId Year I Bowler Name For Vs O % of Tot Max
1.0040 2007 1 Broad S.C.J Eng Ind 19 36 runs 16.5% 20
2.0001 2005 1 Tuffey D.R Nzl Aus 19 30 runs 14.0% 20
3.0027 2007 1 Onyango L.N Ken Slk 19 29 runs 11.2% 20
4.0053 2008 1 Patel J.S Nzl Eng 16 26 runs 14.1% 20
5.0027 2007 1 Tikolo S.O Ken Slk 13 25 runs 9.6% 20
6.0032 2007 1 Yuvraj Singh Ind Nzl 16 25 runs 13.2% 20
7.0057 2008 2 Johnson M.G Aus Win 2 25 runs 24.5% 9
8.0049 2007 2 Symonds A Aus Nzl 18 24 runs 18.2% 19
9.0039 2007 1 Morkel J.A Saf Nzl 15 24 runs 15.7% 20
10.0024 2007 1 Mohammad Ashraful Bng Win 19 24 runs 14.6% 20
11.0079 2008 1 Edwards F.H Win Nzl 8 24 runs 12.6% 20
12.0006 2006 1 Hogg G.B Aus Saf 16 23 runs 11.4% 20
13.0022 2007 1 Haq R.M Sco Pak 13 23 runs 13.5% 20
14.0088 2009 1 Bracken N.W Aus Saf 16 23 runs 14.7% 20
15.0025 2007 1 Dabengwa K.M Zim Eng 13 22 runs 11.7% 20
16.0054 2008 1 Hitchcock P.A Nzl Eng 5 22 runs 11.4% 20
17.0008 2006 2 Mahmood S.I Eng Pak 5 22 runs 14.9% 17
18.0047 2007 1 Sreesanth S Ind Aus 18 22 runs 13.3% 20
19.0035 2007 2 Mohammad Asif Pak Slk 7 22 runs 14.1% 20
& 12 others who have conceded 21 runs in an over,
& 18 others who have conceded 20 runs in an over.
a. There are 30 instances in the first innings and only 19 in the second innings. Clearly a case of the uncertainty prevailing in the first innings when the target is unclear while in the second innings the target is clear and there is no need to go for risky run-scoring efforts.
b. New Zealand batsmen have done this 9 times, followed by South Africa 7 times and Australia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India 6 times each.
c. Australia and New Zealand bowlers have conceded 20 or more runs 8 times while England bowlers 6 times.
d. The Indian batting and England bowling stints converged in the 36-run over essayed by Yuvraj Singh against Broad during the T20 World Cup 2007. The irony is that Yuvraj himself was hit for 25 runs by Oram/McMillan.
e. Hopes, Ashraful, Shahadat Hossain and Sreesanth have conceded 20 or more runs twice in T20 matches.
f. Johnson's 25 run constituted 24.5% of the opposing team total. However this was while a low Australian total was being chased by West Indies, in less than 10 overs. In a complete 19-20 over match, the highest % of runs conceded was in the Symonds over to New Zealand (24 out of 132, but Australia won) and the amazing 36 over bowled by Broad (36 out of 218).
11. T20-Intls: Analysis of maidens bowled
No Bowler Ctry Mat Overs Mdns % Mdns M/M
1 Price R.W Zim 4 16.0 3 18.75 0.75
2 Nel J.D Sco 6 19.0 3 15.79 0.50
3 Gillespie M.R Nzl 11 35.0 3 8.57 0.27
4 Fernando C.R.D Slk 13 46.0 3 6.52 0.23
5 Shahid Afridi Pak 16 61.3 3 4.88 0.19
6 Syed Rasel Bng 8 29.0 2 6.90 0.25
7 Sreesanth S Ind 9 34.0 2 5.88 0.22
8 Bracken N.W Aus 17 56.5 2 3.52 0.12
& 29 others who have bowled a single maiden in their career.
a. There are 8 instances of bowlers exceeding or reaching 3 maidens. Three bowlers have bowled 2 maidens each.
b. Ray Price of Zimbabwe has the best record of maiden frequency with 18.75%, followed by J.D.Nel of Scotland (15.8%) and Gillespie of New Zealand with 8.5%.
c. The highest number of runs conceded in the 20th over is 21 while the highest number of runs conceded in the first over is 19.
c. In T20s a total of 50 maidens were bowled out of 3238 overs making the frequency at one every 65 matches. Contrast this with the IPL figures of 21 maidens out of 2179 overs, working out to a much lower frequency of a maiden every 104 matches. Possibly due to the higher quality of batsmen present.
Comments (11)
May 17, 2009
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Twenty20
T20 bowling - a lateral look
|
|
|
Despite all his experience, Chaminda Vaas went for 23 runs in an over in the IPL
© Associated Press
|
| A hectic and harrowing few days have left me longing for an article which will not have over 100 responses daily, quite a few of them calling for my blood. Hence before I do the follow-up article to the Test batsmen one, I decided to do a simple one which will elicit few, but informed, responses and will be of interest to the discerning readers.
It is my pet theory that it does not matter which bowler the captain bowls in T20.
If the batsman sets his mind, any bowler will go for plenty. This has been substantiated by the happenings in the IPL. The bowlers who have gone for plenty (around 20 runs) are the experienced bowlers such as Flintoff (twice), Agarkar, Vettori (19), Sreesanth (thrice), Ishanth Sharma, Vaas (the 23-run last over) et al. The lesser bowlers also did go but not like this. Hence I decided to put this, possibly unsound, theory to test.
This analysis pertains to T20 International matches. Reluctantly I have come to the conclusion that the IPL is not going away and am building my data base. So the IPL analysis will follow later. I may not be a great fan of IPL, but that entity is a treasure-trove for analysis.
Again the selection criteria plays an important part. I have set the criteria as players who have bowled in a minimum of 3 matches. Since the maximum number of matches for a bowler is 17, this represents a sub-20% lower limit. Initially I set 5 matches as the criteria but enough bowlers did not come through. These and the "all bowlers" data is also summarised later. This is the only criteria I have set. The measure used for classification is Balls per (Bowler) match.
The BpM measure ranges from 24.0 for a few bowlers to around 10.0 for some others. 141 bowlers satisfy this criteria (bowled in 3 or more matches) and are available for analysis. Out of these, 65 bowlers have bowled 21.0 balls or more indicating that these are very regular bowlers. 14 bowlers have bowled 15 balls or less. The middle group, between 15 and 21 balls per match can be termed as somewhat regular bowlers. These limits are used only for some form of classification and are not set in stone. Now let us look at how these bowlers, as a group have performed.
Only bowlers who have bowled in minimum of 3 matches
BpM Bow Balls Runs Wkts St/Rt RpO
Very regular bowlers >=21 65 9825 11245 535 18.36 6.87
Regular bowlers 15-21 62 6298 7752 331 19.03 7.39
Irregular bowlers <15 14 825 1181 41 20.12 7.14
Total 141 16948 20178 907 18.69 7.14
The averaging has been done within a group. The first group denotes bowlers who have almost always completed their spells barring very few matches. The third group denotes bowlers who have rarely completed their spells. The middle group comprises of bowlers who bowled regularly in a support manner. Quite a few of them might have completed their spells also.
What is amazing is that the Strike Rate and RpO among the three groups does not vary that much. There is a differential of less than 10% between the values. If anything, the third group has a better RpO than the middle group.
Compare these with the total figures. Again less than 10% variation.
It seems to give substance to my own conclusion that the lesser bowlers do as well or as badly as the better bowlers particularly during the later half of the innings. No captain would like to take the opening overs lightly.
Now we can see two other summaries. The first is the one where the bar is set higher, to a minimum of 5 matches in which the bowler should have bowled. The second is the one including all bowlers who ever delivered a ball. Hence there is an additional classification in the last table.
Only bowlers who have bowled in minimum of 5 matches
BpM Bow Balls Runs Wkts St/Rt RpO
Very regular bowlers >=21 40 7904 9105 427 18.51 6.91
Regular bowlers 18-21 20 2988 3676 167 17.89 7.38
Irregular bowlers <18 14 1754 2394 86 20.40 8.19
Total 74 12646 15175 680 18.60 7.20
All matches - No limit
BpM Bow Balls Runs Wkts St/Rt RpO
Very regular bowlers >=21 105 11146 12960 602 18.51 6.98
Regular bowlers 18-21 62 4910 5960 269 18.25 7.28
Irregular bowlers 12-18 52 2932 3934 143 20.50 8.05
Casual bowlers <12 32 421 623 22 19.14 8.88
Total 251 19409 23477 1036 18.73 7.26
The results are self-explanatory. There is very little difference between the groups, even in the last one.
Does it mean the bowlers are irrelevant in T20 matches and that the team can field 11 batsmen, a few of them bowling their part-time spin/pace. No way. The team might score 250 quite frequently but almost always the opposing team would knock off these runs in 18 overs.
It is also true that in places like South Africa, where the current IPL is a revelation, quite a few totals of around 150 have been defended successfully. In these places I would advocate a 4 full time bowlers + 7 batsmen (incl keeper). Flintoff/IrfanPathan//Kallis would be considered full-time bowlers. The fifth bowler quota could be met from amongst the batsmen who could bowl. One cannot take any chances in these types of pitches where low totals might have to be defended more often than not.
However the situation is different on the very good batting pitches like the subcontinent where the regular bowler is as likely to go for as many runs as the part-timer. Here it makes sense to play only 3 full-time bowlers and meet the fourth and fifth bowler quotas from amongst the 3/4 batsmen/all-rounders. This would leave enough batting fire-power to chase any total. The adage of "6 batsmen should do the job" might hold good in Tests and, to a lesser extent, ODIs but not in T20 because of the high risks needed to be undertaken by the batsmen. However one should not compromise on the three bowlers. That should comprise of a very good opening pair and a top-flight spinner.
Let me sum this in a different way. I think the captain should be able to say, in a subcontinent match, that his strengthened batting lineup would chase whatever total the other team puts up and of course, up his own team's target score, batting first, by about 20%. On the other hand, the captain in a match in South Africa, should be able to say that his better set of bowlers would defend even a lower total and of course, be able to lower his own team's target score, batting first, by about 20%. These ideas go against the normal thinking that in subcontinent one should strengthen the bowling and on bowler-friendly pitches strengthen the batting.
Let me illustrate my idea with two team selections.
India
In the sub-continent In South Africa et al
Gambhir Gambhir
Sehwag Sehwag
Raina Raina
Yuvraj Singh Yuvraj Singh
R.Sharma R.Sharma
Dhoni Dhoni
Y Pathan Y Pathan
A Nayar / Badrinath P Ojha
Harbhajan Harbhajan
Zaheer Khan Zaheer Khan
R.P.Singh R.P.Singh
The only difference is at no.8 where in the sub-continent a batsman Abhishek Nayar/Badrinath plays while at South Africa, the bowler Ojha plays. These may not be the exact players to consider, but the reader should get the drift. The underlying assumption is that Ojha might go for as many runs as a combination of Nayar/Sharma but Nayar or Badrinath would give the batting edge. A similar exercise for Australia.
Australia
In the sub-continent In South Africa et al
Haddin Haddin
Clarke Clarke
Ponting Ponting
M Hussey M Hussey
Symonds Symonds
Watson Watson
Hopes Hopes
D Hussey / Warner Hilfenhaus
Johnson Johnson
Lee Lee
Bracken Bracken
Here the choice could be between D.Hussey/Warner who are primarily batsmen and Hilfenhaus, a bowler. D Hussey could as well bowl a few overs in India as Hilfenhaus.
The choice for Sri Lanka could be between Kandamby/Silva (batsman) and Thushara (bowler). For England it could be between Mascarenhas and Anderson. For Pakistan the choice could be between Fawad Alam and Shoaib Akhtar. And so on.
Umar Gul, Vettori, Afridi, Stuart Clark, Abdur Razzak, RP Singh, Shoaib Malik et al are representative of very good T20 bowlers and bowlers like these and others cannot easily be replaced by the casual bowlers.
To all the readers:
I have mentioned in my replies to your comments that all my analysis is based on the scorecard data since I do not have access to the proprietary ball-by-ball data.
However I have seen that there is quite a lot of over-based data available in public domain.
I also realize that to do a proper analysis of the bowlers and their deployment, it is necessary for me to use what is available in the public domain and develop my own over-based data.
I have started work on this and once that work is over, expected to take about a week, I should be able to do much more in-depth analysis of T20 and IPL matches and then we can look at this particular analysis segment, amongst others, with lot more clarity. The middle overs, for that matter, the early and end overs, will cease to be a mystery.
Comments (32)
March 27, 2009
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Twenty20
T20 - Target score for first innings
|
|
|
Chris Gayle's century wasn't enough to prevent South Africa from winning the opening the game of the World Twenty20. They chase down 206, the highest successful run-chase in international Twenty20 games
© Getty Images
|
| Finally I have come around to my first T20 analysis. I had to do some serious T20 ratings analysis work related to another project and as part of that work, I looked at T20 matches from a totally different angle. One aspect of this analysis was to determine a reasonable target score for the first innings (the target score for the second innings is no problem, even when the learned professors, M/s Duckworth and Lewis come in with their umbrellas!). The team’s achievement in terms of exceeding or falling short of the dynamically computed target score is determined to compute one segment of the individual ratings. It also allows me to allocate the credits between bowlers and batsmen.
Let me add that my database, current upto the West Indies - England game, is limited to T20 International matches and as of now I have no intention of building a Database of other club-based T20 matches.
First some facts about T20 matches. Let me say that I have completely ignored team strengths, pitch conditions et al since there is not enough data and in this short version of the game, there is lot more evening out between the two teams.
1. A total of 84 matches have been played and completed. Out of these, 4 have been tied. 2 matches outside these 84 have been washed out.
2. 34 (out of 80) matches have been won by the team batting first. This represents 42.5% of the completed matches. One of these wins has been through D/L method.
3. 46 (out of 80) matches have been won by the team chasing. This represents 57.5% of the completed matches. One of these wins has been through D/L method.
4. Out of these 46 matches, the top 4 run chases have been against scores of 165 and above. These four succesful run chases are detailed below. In other words, any team scoring 165 and above has a 90+ % chance of winning the game. This seems to be true irrespective of the relative team strengths. It is also possible that the weaker team might bat first more often than not.
020 2007 Win 205/ 6 (20.0) Lost to Saf 208/ 2 (17.4) at Wanderer's, Jo'burg
082 2009 Slk 171/ 4 (20.0) Lost to Ind 174/ 7 (19.2) at Premadasa, Colombo
016 2007 Win 169/ 7 (20.0) Lost to Eng 173/ 5 (19.3) at Oval, London
047 2007 Aus 166/ 5 (20.0) Lost to Ind 167/ 3 (18.1) at Brabourne, Mumbai
5. It is a reasonable assumption to make that the team batting first should set themselves a Target score of 165 runs to have a 90+ % chance of winning. Anything more would obviously further increase the chance of winning. However we are not looking at a Target score with 100% chance, which, at the current moment is 206.
6. If we drop the number from 165 to 160, the number of losses is more than doubled since 5 more matches are won by batting teams chasing 164, 164, 164, 162 and 162 successfully. The win % drops to 80% so there is a need to retain the Target score at 165.
It is possible that in the next 5 matches, 170+ scores would have been chased. However that does not make the idea of working on a Target score invalid and as things stand, 165 seems to be a very good number for a captain to write on the team sheet.
The reason this score is very relevant is because of what happened in the two T20 matches between New Zealand and India. Each time India had an explosive start, looked good to score 200, tried to score 200 and finished with 162 and 149. Both scores were chased down with ease, although New Zealand were too cautious in the middle overs in the scond T20 and almost threw the match away. They should have won more comfortably with the explosive start set by the openers.
The importance of not aiming for too much cannot be over-emphasized especially in T20 matches. In T20 it is paramount for the captains to understand the nuances of the game. It is possible that Dhoni is aware of this. However his batsmen, Gambhir, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Sharma et al tried to attack without a clear understanding of the par score.
In ODIs, nowadays even scores of 300+ are chased quite comfortably. However even there a reasonable target score should be aimed at. The 100% winning score is 435. However the par Target score might very well be 285. But it must be remembered that data is available for 2822 matches for us to make a facts-based determination of a par Target score for a venue.
Just to sum up the first batting wins. Out of the 34 wins, 8 teams have won by putting up a total of 200 and above, 11 by posting wins of between 180 and 200, 10 by posting between 150 and 180 and 4 have been bowling wins with sub-150 totals. One has been an amazing defence by Ireland of a total of 43 for 7 in a D/L match.
It is impossible to infuse the other Test/ODI parameters such as Ground/Pitch conditions, Team strengths, Average scores et al because of the low number of matches, the absence of any meaningful statistics and the very nature of the game.
Out of the 86 T20 matches, a whopping 34 have been played in South Africa, mainly because of the 2007 WC, in addition to one washed out match. 11 matches have been played in Ireland, in addition to one washed out match. 10 matches have been played in New Zealand. 8 matches have been played in Canada, all in one centre.
Wanderer's has staged the maximum of T20 matches, 16 in all. Just to give the readers an idea of the analyst's nightmare of determining a target score at Wanderer's, I have given below the 16 first innings scores. These seem to move like a yo-yo although there seems to be a recent trend for lower scores.
133, 201, 126, 129, 205, 164, 260, 164, 190, 189, 164, 147, 157, 129, 131 and 118.
Note: I stayed up to watch the interesting T20 match between Australia and South Africa. Australia scored 166 (just passing the par Target score mentioned) and lost a very close match. Strike 1 against me, I suppose.
Important footnote:
This refers to the points raised by Aneesh and Kieran. They have correctly questioned my 90+% figure.
First let me say that the 90+% is based on all instances of chasing team winning, which is 46. Out of these 46, only 4 chases have been of scores of 165 and above. Thus the figure of 90% came in.
However stricly speaking, both Aneesh and Kieran are correct. My sample should be the teams which crossed 165 and not the successful chases. Let me work out that figure below.
26 teams crossed 165 (barring the last Saf-Aus match, which has been excluded for sake of consistency). Out of these, 4 teams lost and the other 22 won. So the winning % is 84 and not 90.
Hence I am going to change my Target score to 170, which would lead to 24 wins and 2 losses (win % of 92).
My thanks to Aneesh and Kieran.
T20 Batsman Strike Rates (Min 200 runs) - (Gokul)
No Batsman Ctry Mat Runs Balls S/R BatAvg
1 Symonds A Aus 13 337 198 170.2 56.17
2 Yuvraj Singh Ind 9 262 159 164.7 32.75
3 Gayle C.H Win 7 261 162 161.1 37.29
4 Oram J.D.P Nzl 13 293 187 156.6 36.62
5 Jayasuriya S.T Slk 11 341 221 154.3 34.10
6 Imran Nazir Pak 10 201 134 150.0 25.12
7 Sehwag V Ind 11 223 154 144.8 20.27
8 Pietersen K.P Eng 15 375 260 144.2 26.79
9 Hayden M.L Aus 9 308 214 143.9 51.33
10 Jayawardene M Slk 11 210 147 142.8 23.33
11 Duminy J.P Saf 9 256 181 141.4 32.00
12 Gilchrist A.C Aus 13 272 192 141.6 22.67
13 Morkel J.A Saf 15 270 193 139.9 24.55
14 Collingwood P.D Eng 15 344 246 139.8 24.57
15 Masakadza H Zim 7 258 190 135.7 36.86
16 Aftab Ahmed Bng 9 215 161 133.5 26.88
17 Ponting R.T Aus 14 375 283 132.5 34.09
18 Gibbs H.H Saf 13 225 171 131.5 18.75
19 Shah O.A Eng 11 241 186 129.5 26.78
20 Taylor R.L Nzl 17 323 253 127.6 21.53
21 Misbah-ul-Haq Pak 14 398 312 127.5 56.86
22 Smith G.C Saf 12 364 286 127.2 36.40
23 Gambhir G Ind 11 328 259 126.6 29.82
24 Kemp J.M Saf 8 203 160 126.8 50.75
25 McCullum B.B Nzl 21 582 464 125.4 34.24
26 Shoaib Malik Pak 16 383 307 124.7 31.92
27 Younis Khan Pak 15 260 223 116.5 18.57
28 Styris S.B Nzl 15 272 240 113.3 19.43
29 Dhoni M.S Ind 12 215 207 103.8 23.89
30 Salman Butt Pak 12 266 288 92.3 26.60
Comments (21)
|
RSS Feed
