VitalStats

Sachin, Ponting or Jayasuria?

2009-10-01T13:38:00.008+01:00

Take your pick using this interactive graph...

Sachin Vs Salman

2006-02-07T08:52:00.000Z

Record books will show that Salman Butt and Sachin Tendulkar scored similar centuries in the 1st ODI at Peshawar yesterday. While both ended their innings with a strike rate of around 90 (Sachin 100 of 113 balls, Salman 101 of 111 balls), their innings were far from identifical...

(click on image to enlarge)

And yes, in case you havent noticed, I am back...

but only briefly as I head to India for a much needed holiday!

In suspension

2006-01-29T17:21:00.000Z

Hello all,

Will not be able to post regularly for the next few weeks as I am extremely busy with work, travelling etc.

Aplogies...

Predicting the Predictable - II

2006-01-22T18:21:00.000Z

I believe that ODIs follow a predictable pattern and, as the title of this post suggests, the aim of this and the previous post is to prove the same. And since this is a continuation of the previous post, I would strongly recommend anyone who has not read that post to do so before reading any further.

In the previous post, I had highlighted some of the most important attributes and also, in my opinion, flaws of the one day game, namely:

There exists some kind of a par 1st innings score that gives both teams an equal chance of winning
If the game moves away from this par score, the chances of winning and losing change dramatically. And so do the margins of victory and defeat.

I am sure a lot of you will question the existence of these attributes based on one graph. To begin with, the game has changed over the years. Add to it the fact that the nature of the game played in various parts of the world is different. Hence, to say that the above attributes represent ODI cricket in general appears to be unfair and flawed.

Fair enough. Frankly, even I had my doubts before I started this analysis couple of weeks ago. Since then, I have analysed the One-day game to see if the above mentioned attributes do exist and are common to ODIs in general. I did this by grouping ODIs together based on different parameters.

First, here is a comparison of games played in this decade (2000 thru 2005) with all games played since 1971.

Note, as mentioned in my previous post, these graphs do not include games decided by the D/L (or similar) method, less than 45 overs (as they distort the numbers) and those that did not finish in a +ve result (i.e. "No Results" due to rain). Also note that in this (and all graphs), the line going from bottom left to top right represents the % times the team batting first has won after scoring the runs represented in the "x" axis, and vice versa. This gives us a par score (50% chance of winning or losing) where the lines intersect.

(Please click on this and other graphs to enlarge)

As you can see, apart from the difference in the par score, both those graphs are similar. And as expected, the par score in the games is a bit higher for games played in this decade.

Now, given the fact that ODIs in the sub-continent are normally higher scoring than the rest of the world, I split the games between those played in the sub continent and elsewhere and did a similar comparison...

The sub-continental graph does appear "wonky" but on close inspection, it exhibits exactly what I am trying to prove, i.e. outside of the par score, the result becomes predictable, and in this case, its just more pronounced. And again, as expected the par score is higher for the sub-continental games. Guy who might still be holding their sheet of paper tick or cross your answers :-)

I was also aware that this split based on regional lines may not be correct, as not all grounds in the sub-continent are high scoring and vice versa. In order to eliminate this, I split the games based on the average run-rates for individual grounds. I used 4.50 RPO as the basis for the split (simple because this gave me about 1,000 ODI s on either side). And here is what I came up with...

And, just to be absolutely sure that all the above graphs did indeed exhibit more or less similar characteristics, I merged all of them into one graph...

Funny enough, any which way you slice and dice this damn game, it does not seem to change. I am sure if I had picked up a random group of ODIs, I would have seen the same result. i.e., existence of some kind of par score, and either side of it, the game starts to get one sided.

Now, you may ask, so what, is this really a problem? In my opinion, yes, because given the 1st innings total, and with enough knowledge of the ground, era, etc, it becomes easy to predict the outcome of the game. And I am talking of games involving two evenly matched teams, (not Australia Vs Namibia kind).

And anyone need further convincing need not look any further then the last few games of the VB series being played in Australia. In fact, next time you sit down to watch a One-Day game; try to guess the result after the first innings is over. And see how many times you are correct.

Now, logically speaking, if there is a par score, it implies that most 1st innings scores should be finishing around that score, no? Well, this is another aspect of this whole analysis that struck meas odd (and something i have not been able to understand). See the % of games that fall into these different "run-bands"...

Talk about similarity here!!

Now, it would be appear that the ideal situation would be for more games to have the 1st innings scores around par score as it would be difficult to determine the result of those games. Frankly, this would make the whole game boring and the excitement would only kick-in at the death of the second innings (say 5-10 overs left). A bit like the 250-270 games we are so used to seeing in the sub-continent.

So is there another solution by which no matter what the situation of the game at the mid-point, it becomes difficult to predict the result? Or in other words, can the element of par be eliminated?

In my opinion, it can. But not by making flat pitches or introducing meaningless rules like Powerplays or Super-subs. All they do it increase the runs being scored in the game but, as I just proved, does not change the nature of the game...

Anyway, to understand how this par can be eliminated, I will need to compare ODIs with other "Set-target, Chase-target" kind of games like Test cricket and Baseball (actually, none other come to mind)!

And as a starting point, I will analyse how easy (or difficult) it is to determine the par score in Test cricket and why.

But that in my next post.

The Lahore Fiaso...

2006-01-20T21:19:00.000Z

First spare a thought for the television companies who paid millions for the rights to telecast the Test match. Then a passing thought for millions of fans who wasted their time watching a meaningless sporting contest, and more importantly, the players who took part in one.

And finally, a casual thought for the curator and Inzaman who are getting their share of blame for this pitch.

And what about the greedy morons (BCCI, PCB, etc) who decided that it would be a great idea to schedule a Test in Lahore in January?

If they lacked local knowlegde of the weather, maybe they should have checked the dates when Tests have been scheduled in Lahore in the past...

(click on image to enlarge).

For those of you wondering what happened to the only other Test Match that was played in January, check this. And yes, it was the poor Kiwis who decided that losing a Test match inside 3 days was better than sweating it out for 5 in the first week of May in the sub-continent.

Like I said before, scheduling Test matches is a science, but rocket science…

These damn schedules again...

2006-01-19T10:15:00.000Z

Even though I am loaded with work at the moment, the moment I see schedules, shambles, BCCI, ICC and more shambles all rolled in the space of a hours, my eyes light up.

Why do we keep going around in circles as far as this scheduling is concerned. How difficult can it be to get 10 nations to play each other on a consistent basis?

Frankly, any sensible person could spend a weekend and come up with something more sensible that what the ICC and the various boards will ever come up with. After all, its not rocket science.
But I said "sensible"…

Anyway, just to prove a point, I spent all of 10 minutes (in the middle of a very busy morning) and came up with this simple schedule for India that takes into consideration what India want (i.e. play more against Australia , England and Pakistan ) without upsetting the ICC Test Cycle.

(click on image to enlarge)

And in those 10 minutes, I also had time to colour code this damn thing!

I now things are not as simplistic, but I also feel that there is nothing that cannot be achieved by sitting down on a table and discussing things.

Just make sure you have a laptop with Microsoft Excel loaded on it...

Predicting the Predictable

2006-01-18T19:43:00.000Z

Now that I have contracted Foot in Mouth disease for suggesting that Test cricket is better of because of boring draws, I should refrain from discussing the virtues of Test cricket. Though I do hope by this time next week order is restored and we can talk of dull boring draws on dead pitches as a thing of the past.

Anyway, this post is more to do about the One-Day game and less to do with Test cricket (though they are related in a vague sort of way).

Before reading any further, ask yourself this question; when you sit down to watch a one day game does a par score cross your mind, i.e., a score after the first innings that gives both Teams an equal chance of winning? And after the 1^st innings is over, do you have a gut feeling as to who will win (or lose) the game? And are you more often right then wrong?

If the answer to all these questions is no, then you haven't watched enough one day cricket, but read on nevertheless J

And if the answer is yes, then welcome to the club. In this case, pick up a pen and paper and write down the rough par scores that come to your mind based on all* ODIs played:

- World wide since the early 70's

- World-wide since Jan 1^st 2000

- In the sub continent

- Outside the sub continent

* Excluding games decided by D/L (or similar) method, less than 45 overs (as they distort the numbers) and those that did not result in a +ve result (mainly due to rain, but occasional Ties)

I am looking for four answers here (one for each) but let me clarify, I do not expect anyone to come up with accurate answers. The main idea (apart from a bit of fun) is to see if such numbers do spring to mind.

Now to proceed. I had mentioned in one of my earlier posts that higher the 1^st innings score, the more the chances of the team winning. As a refresher, here is the graph from that post (ignore the comparison with Test cricket for the moment)

(click on this and other images to enlarge)

And since we know that in the one day game, unless there is rain interruption or a tie (which is very rare), if you are not winning, you are losing. If we exclude these 'No Result' games, the losing line is a mirror of the winning line, we get a graph in which the lines cross each other at the 50% mark (donating a point when the chance of winning or losing is equal, or at Par).

(Based on all* Games world wide)

As you can see, the lines cross somewhere between the 200-225 & 225-250 band, thus giving us an indication that roughly in the 215-230 range is a par score in ODIs (Tick or cross your first answer but let me remind you this is not an attempt to find an accurate number).

And there is another striking aspect of the game; not only does the chance of winning (or losing) change dramatically once you move from the par score, the margins of victory (or defeat) also change dramatically.

(please note, I have used nr of balls left as the margin of victory if Team batting 2^nd wins as opposed to the traditional wickets margin).

Now, in my opinion, these graphs highlight some of the most important attributes (and also flaws) of the One day game:

Some kind of par score exits
It exists EXACTLY in the middle of the game
If the game moves away from this par score, the chances of winning and losing change dramatically. And so do the margins of victory and defeat.

So the moment the 1^stinnings score moves away from the par score, its starts becoming predictable move. So how many games finish around the par score and how many out side it?

As you can see, only about 25% -30% games do finish around the par score. So about 70-75% games finish outside the par score and the further they are from that score, the more one sided they get.

Now, in the ideal world, it would be great if all games finished around the par score. But that would mean that the 1^st Innings would be come predictable and boring J We can't win, can we

Anyway, got to rush now. Travelling, work etc will keep me away for a couple of days.

But don't throw away your tiny sheet of par scores as we still need to find out how the game has changed in the last few years and how sub continental games differ from elsewhere. And feel free to revise those scores. After all, there are no prizes for guessing correctly J

From the Rediff archives

2006-01-17T08:44:00.000Z

Here is a series of articles I wrote nearly 4 years ago commenting on the ICC Test championship and its associated schedule (to be read in sequence).

The "ideal" Test championship
The ICC's system - a rating or a Championship
Building a Perfect World Championship schedule
Analysis - ICC Vs PWC
Accommodating One Day Internationals

The reason I have put the link here? Because I heard that the BCCI finally want to play 12 Tests and 30 ODIs every year, that too with Major countries and don't care a hoot about the ICC Test Championship.

Can't blame India. Frankly, does anybody really care about the Championship which (as I pointed out 4 years ago) was a badly implemented idea (Like most things we have come to expect from the ICC).

I admit the "perfect" schedule I have proposed in these articles is far from perfect, but I came up with it one weekend on a excel spreadsheet. And didn't make millions of dollars for doing it either :-)

Enjoy...

The Lahore Pitch...

2006-01-16T16:59:00.000Z

While I am in the middle of an analysis highlighting the virtues of Test cricket (over ODI’s), this (pitch) seems like a conspiracy against my blog.

Anyway, I am sure there is still hope that something can be done to put some life into the Lahore pitch like…

Placing a dummy in the middle of a Rugby stadium in UK and informing the Americans that Bin Laden has been spotted playing ball in Europe. And wait for them to land a few cluster bombs with pin point accuracy (one must add) at the Gadaffi Stadium in Lahore, causing just about enough damage for Kaneria to turn the ball. And to minimize collateral damage, just make sure only the curator of the ground is present near the pitch. …and Ganguly.
Getting experts like the Shiv Saniks who can alter the conditions of the pitch overnight.
Asking all right-handed Indian batsmen to bat left handed and vice versa, and hope they get out quickly. Except Ganguly. Why bother...
Selling the rights of the Lahore pitch for $10 million to Nike, so they can swoosh it with their logo. That might just do it.
Blow up a cylinder in the stands and wait for Afridi to do his little "twist & turn" routine. Again to minimize loss of life in the stands....
Allowing the Pakistani bowlers to bend their arms by 30 degrees so they can extract some life out of this pitch. On second thoughts, it wont make any difference to either Akhtar or Malik.
Allowing a special Super-sub rule for the last day of the Test, so that Pakistan can sub 10 of the Indian batsmen…with Ganguly. And make sure he bats left-handed...

Any more suggestions?

South Africa-Australia run rate...

2006-01-15T18:06:00.000Z

Nothing special here (was just messing around with Adobe, etc.), but here goes...

(click on image to enlarge)

Who needs boring draws?

2006-01-15T06:11:00.000Z

Is India virtually out of this Test (104/0, still 614 behind Pakistan) or does she still have a chance here?

Well, Indian fans can take solace from the fact that while India’s chances of winning this game are virtually nil, they can still finish with a ‘favourable’ result. For Pakistan's point of view, the game is not in the bag and they still have to do a lot of hard work to win this Test.

Here is a graph showing a Team’s chance of winning or losing depending on the first innings score of a Test Match (based on all Test matches played around the world).

(click on this and all other images to enlarge)

As you can see India still have about a 50% chance of “not losing” this game because Paksitan have only a 50% chance of winning (simple math really), thus giving India the option to go for the draw. While we can all do without high scoring boring draws, we have to acknowledge that they form an integral part of Test cricket as they eliminate (or reduce) imbalances in the game.

Had this been an ODI game and Pakistan would have scored something similar (say 350+, which is, IMO, the equivalent to 650+ in Tests), the game would have been virtually sealed after the first innings, and Indian fans would have watched the game out of hope rather than expectation.

Here is how a Team’s chances of winning is linked to their 1st innings score (I have excluded rain excluded ODIs that were decided by D/L or similar methods)

As you can see, because ODIs do not have the luxury of a draw, high scoring games tend to get very one-sided in favour of the Team batting first. So though 4s and 6s make seem exciting, too many of them in a game do not make a game exciting.

Now, while I am not trying to condone these kind of high-scoring games played on placid pitches, I would still take something like this to a high scoring ODI.

Very reluctantly, I must add...

ps. I had started this analysis before this game, hence I only have a 500+ column. In hind sight...

Advantage India

2006-01-14T09:18:00.000Z

India can take heart. Pakistan has never won a Test match after scoring more than 650 in the first innings of a Test match :-)

ps. Statistically speaking, Pakistan have only a 57.9% chance of winning this game (after scoring more than 650 runs). However, had they scored 350+ in an ODI (which is my opinion is an equivalant score in that format, they would have had a 100% chance of winning (See my previous post sometimes more is less).

This is going to be the basis of my next few posts wherein I try to analyse the two formats of the game. Stay tuned...

(added 15/1/2006) Please see this

apologies

2006-01-14T08:40:00.000Z

Apologies to my "regulars" for not posting anything in the last couple of days. Been busy, family and all...

(not the mention the Ind-Pak Test)

Lahore, not a bad place...

2006-01-11T08:28:00.000Z

With the first Test between India and Pakistan about to start there in a couple of days, I thought it might be interesting (for some) to get an idea of what type of cricket to expect at the Gadaffi stadium (Lahore) in terms of Run rates, Strike Rates, Averages, etc. And for good measure, I have thrown in a comparison with Eden Gardens, Lord's and MCG.

So here is the comparative analysis of these four grounds for the last 5, 10, 15, 20 and overall* games:

Run rates (which also indicates the changing nature of Test cricket overall),

averages (runs per wicket),

strike Rates (balls per wicket),

and lastly, result %

All in all, the Gadaffi stadium does not seem a bad place to be watching cricket. Hey, add a sexy media centre, tilt the ground a bit, and it will even start resembling Lord's. And a few bowler hats might even confuse your die-hard MCC member.

Hmm, never mind the last bit...

* For an apples to apples comparison, in the overall records figures, I have only included Tests played at Melbourne, Lords and Eden Gardens since 1959 (i.e., after the Gaddafi stadium hosted its first Test).

Ganguly in Numbers

2006-01-08T09:43:00.000Z

I know it is unfair to try and capture Ganguly's captaincy and its impact on Indian cricket in numbers. His intangible contribution is that he built a new sense of confidence and cockiness within Indian cricket, groomed youngsters and has a big part to play in getting Indian cricket to where it is now and no amount of graphical analysis can do justice to his legacy (sorry if I am wrongly assuming his days as Indian captain in both forms of the game are over).

However, you can't help asking youself this question, if Ganguly is indeed our most successful captain, how good was he? How many did he win, and lose? What was his record against the leading nations, and against the minnows? What was his batting record as captain and how did it compare with Tendulkar, Dravid (in ODI's & Tests), Sehwag (in ODI's) and Laxman (in Tests)? And lastly, how did he compare with his peers like Vaughan, Inzamam, Ponting (!!) and Fleming.

I am sure you have all come across various stats regarding Ganguly, and here is yet another one, genuine attempt on my part to "codify" Ganguly in Black & White (ok, shades of pink, purple and blue)...

First his Captaincy record in Tests:

and in ODIs...

In one of my previous posts, I have briefly touched upon the performance of the Tendulkar & Dravid under Ganguly. I have also done a head-to-head comparision of his performance against Tendulkar.

But here is a more detailed analysis of how Tendulkar, Dravid and Sehwag performed under Ganguly in ODIs highlighting their contribution in games won/lost, etc.

And a similar comparision of Dravid, Tendulkar & Laxman in the Tests ( note this is only their record under Ganguly, so Tendulkar's 194* in India's win Pakistan in 2004 under Dravid does not feature).

Lastly, how did Ganguly compare with respect to his peers in the modern game? I have kept this comparision as a simple Win/Loss record in Tests and ODIs.

Here is his record compared to other modern day captains (with apologies to Chanderpaul, Taibu and Bashar).

And a similar record in ODIs...

As I mentioned in the begining, it is difficult to codify Ganguly in numbers, but at least these numbers should remove (or rekindle) some of the debate around his legacy

Cheers...

Sometimes more is less...

2006-01-08T09:42:00.000Z

2005 was a bumper year for teams batting first in ODIs. Not only did they win over 55% of the games, 21 times they managed to score 300 or more (11 times going on to score more than 325). This is the highest both in terms of numbers and % of games played (21 of 107) over the years. The previous highest was in 2002 when 19 teams scored 300+ in 147 games...

Wow, you will say, this is great. It means that the One-day game is getting more exciting. Fours, sixes (the works basically) and this is what we what to see.

Well, not exactly especially when you look at the number of times the team batting second has actually crossed 300 in the same games...

As you can see, teams batting second still haven't mastered the art of chasing high scoring games. The result is that the number of teams that win chasing a score of 300 or more is still very low.

(this is a cumulative % and excludes games won on D/L method).

Also, not only do teams batting first (scoring 300 or more) win over 90% of the games, the average margin of victory stands at a staggering 101 runs!

I agree that when teams batting second do win or get close to the target (like the two games between NZ & Aus in December) the games tend to be great, but these games are few and far in between a load of one-sided encounters.

So at half time the 9/1 odds may look favourable, but don't be fooled and bet on the team batting second (not yet anyway).

Sadly, the only people who think that more is not less are the adminstrators who run this game. Bring on more Powerplays, I say, and see the % of 300+ scores shoot through the roof but don't put your money on an exciting game.

Anyway (on a slightly different note), its not all doom and gloom out there, as this suggests.

The number of ODIs being played over the years seems to be finally heading south and I hope its not just a blip...

postscript: Just watching the current Twenty20 game between South Africa and Australia. The first thing that stuck me was that the boundary ropes had been brought in to enable more fours and sixes. Unfortunately, all it did was create another one sided contest. At the end of the day, be it Tests, ODIs or Twenty20, if cricket is not an even contest between bat and ball, it ceases to be a contest. But watching the crowd cheer Pollock hit fours and sixes when South Africa need 150 runs in 50 balls makes me wonder!!! Maybe, I am in the minority here and cricket has indeed become a game of individual brilliance, the result be damned...

No Black on White, no stats, but some story that...

2006-01-07T10:40:00.000Z

And with a heavy heart, but on public demand, I have the changed the colours on this blog. On hindsight, I do a agree with this neutral colour theme.

Anyway, while I run around trying to find some more interesting stats, here is something for the weekend; my not so serious attempt at writing.

Hope you like it.

Twenty20

2006-01-06T09:13:00.000Z

I belong to the (old) school of thought that says if you want to win a Test match, you first pick up a bowling attack that can get you twenty wickets before picking up the batsmen who can score 500 runs.

So, IMO, a better bowling attack is the one that has a "better" potential to take twenty wickets in a Test.

I made this point during the recent Ashes and showed how England had an edge over Australia in the bowling department and hence were better placed to take wickets. And in hindsight, it wasn't such a bad analysis :-)

Now, our very own "Bhai bhai Ashes" is being billed as the contest between the Pakistani bowlers and the Indian batsmen, thus giving the impression that the Pakistan has a "better" bowling attack than India.

Question is; is it? Lets see...

To determine which is the better, I have analysed both bowling attacks based on their "Wicket Taking Potential" (WTP, to coin my own abbreviation), which is the simple addition of the Wickets per match statistic of their front line bowlers.

I have assumed that the bowling attack for India will consist of Pathan, Kumble, Harbhajan and Zaheer (sorry Agarkar) and Pakistan will go with Akhtar, Sami, Naved and Kaneria.

Also, to get a better spread for analysis, I have determined the WTP based on the records from the last 5, 10, 15, 20 Tests and entire career. (Except in the case of Naved, who has only played in 7 Tests and Pathan, in 18).

Here it is...

As you can see, the Indians, on any given 5 days, can take about 3 more wickets that the Pakistanis thus making them a "better" attack.

Have I missed something here? Ah, yes! While I can chose to ignore part time bowlers like Malik, Shewag, Tendulkar and Yuvraj (ok Ganguly as well), Afridi is too good a bowler to ignore, as India found out at Bangalore last year.

So what does his inclusion do to the Pakistani WTP? This...

Though India still have their noses ahead, the difference becomes negligible. However, the balance now tilts in favour of Pakistan because (again old school thought) a five man bowling attack is better than four.

Now, this WTP analysis ignores an important aspect that also determines the quality of a bowling attack. It is the bowling average (number of runs given per wicket). Needless to say, if both bowling attacks have the same WTP, the one which gives away less runs wins.

I have used the bowling averages to determine the potential runs a bowling attack is likely to give away while taking 20 wickets, i.e. I have multiplied the bowling average with wickets per Test for each bowler, added it for the entire attack and normalised it to twenty wickets (for example, if India gives 340 runs to get 17 wickets, they will give 400 runs to get 20).

So how do both the bowling attacks compare in this department?

So no matter what the pundits say, reverse swing or not, I think the Indian bowling attack is miles ahead of Pakistan.

Having said that, when Akhtar steams in to bowl to Sehwag, all this counts for nothing...

postscript: Sometimes you don't need 20 wickets to win as the Aussies demonstrated today. In fact, this is the 11th time that a team has declared in the 3rd innings of a Test and lost. And the third time when a team has declared both its innings and lost (including the famous famous Cronje game at the centurion when South Africa scored 248/8 and then forfeited one innings along with England, and England scored 251 for 8 to win).

Serious Cricket Anyone?

2006-01-04T13:00:00.000Z

I take it that the BCCI have finally got fed up with the amount of games it is forced play against the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh and are ready to challenge the ICC's 10-year Test schedule. The reason? They want to start playing serious cricket. Secretly, all the other major Cricketing nations are nodding their heads in agreement and are backing the BCCI. After all, thatÂs what their fans, players and sponsors want to see, don't they?

As fans, we should all rejoice that the BCCI is ready to take a sensible stand, on behalf of us and the rest of the cricketing world. However, before we decide to open the champagne and celebrate, it will be interesting to look back and see how much meaningless cricket (against the minnows) the ICC has 'forced' down our throats in the last six years.

I have done a brief analysis of all ODIs and Tests played by each country since Jan 2000. (click on all images to get the bigger picture).

First, the number of ODIs played by country

As you can see, India leads the pack, closely followed by Pakistan, England and the West Indies.

And now the Tests played, again by country

Again, India leads the pack, which is even more surprising considering the amount of Test cricket we play.

Now combining the figures, we get the average days of cricket played per year (assuming 5 days of Test cricket, which is a bit rare against Minnows, but never mind).

Again no surprises there.

While you look at this chart, ask yourself this question; if the sub continent is indeed the centre of the cricketing World, why do India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan play less cricket than say West Indies, where the game is all but dead! Don't expect an answer anytime soon.

Ok before I proceed, apologies if I made you believe that India consistently plays 80 days of cricket every year. Just to clarify, this is the actual number of days of cricket being played (by country) every year since 2000, and as always, India continues to dominate both, the low and high ends of graph.

Pakistan probably has a genuine reason for an inconsistent schedule (due to security concerns after 9/11, etc) but how the BCCI managed to schedule 115 days of cricket in one year, and 53 the very next is beyond me! But I had made this point in one of my earlier posts, so I will pass.

Some of you may look at these numbers and say, yes India is on top because we play more cricket but overall as a percentage, we cant be that bad, can we?

Here is the answer.

And hence they are upset, and may I remind you, with the ICC.

Now if only the BCCI had bothered to find out how the other countries manage to play more cricket (and that to consistently) and less of the meaningless cricket in question, and yet adhere to the ICC's policy (however stupid it may be)?

But I guess it's a lot easier to pick up the phone and make a call across the Arabian Sea and shout foul.

Anyway, I do hope the BCCI knows what to do with the spare time once they decide not to play Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. After all, the next team to visit India after England (in Mar 2006) is Zimbabwe in October 2007, followed by West Indies in 2008!!! (Talk about Home advantage for the next two years)

So if India decides not to play Zimbabwe at the end of next year, we may not have any team visiting India for the next two years, unless we can convince someone to come down and fill in he gap. But last I checked, not many countries seem to have the spare time in their busy schedules. Well, there is always Bangladesh from across the border, but

I guess the BCCI really donÂt care about this 2 year gap. They just want to play cricket (as long as it is meaningful) and if they can make the money via TV rights, what is the need to host cricket in India as all. With 70% of the tickets given away as passes, the real fans donÂt get to see the games anyway, so why bother with the logistics of hosting games for a few thousand rupees in gate receipts.

Anyway, in case you want to mark your calendars in advance (so as to stay away from your Television sets), according to the ICC schedule, India have to visit Bangladesh, host Zimbabwe and visit Zimbabwe in the next 5 years. A WHOLE 30 days of pointless Test cricket!!! As opposed to the 65 days of Test cricket that was forced upon us in the last 6 years.

Damn, I deviated in this post, as my point really was about the ICC and the crap it forces down the throats of the like of the BCCI, and not about the BCCI itself.

Never mind

Catch me if you can...

2006-01-01T21:44:00.000Z

For a few years now, the rest of the cricketing world has been trying to catch-up with the Aussies. One of the (many) areas the Aussies have been ahead of the others is in scoring hugh first innings totals and that to an an alarming run-rate.

So, how do the other countries compare with the Aussies, and is the gap finally closing?

Here is the comparision of Run rates and Average runs per wicket (by year) between the Aussies and their opposition (in head to head games).

I know there is the Ashes factor in 2005 but can we hope to see the gap closing further in 2006?

Another vital stat to look out for this year...

The Punter and the Wall

2006-01-01T15:14:00.000Z

They both started their careers within 6 months of each other and in similar fashion with scores of 95 & 96 respectively.

When they first came face to face, they had scored 193 & 187 runs respectively (with 2 fifties each).

When they last met (in the ICC-XI Vs Aus "TEST" in 2005), they had both added over 7,000 runs to their names and were playing their 92nd and 94nd Test Respectively. And at the end of last year only 13 runs and 0.90 points in their average seperated the two.

And yes, both bat at Nr. 3, have 58 & 59 Fifty-plus scores in Test cricket, and also captain their respective sides.

Have their been any other players in Test Cricket whose careers have been so closely linked? Lara and Sachin come to mind...

Anyway, will be fun to see who gets to 10,000 first. I am tempted to put my money on Punter, now that he is finally ready to go over the wall, but I wouldn't like to bet against the Wall either...

The Making of Freddie

2005-12-31T15:04:00.000Z

It took seven years for him to fulfill his potential, but most (including the Aussies) will agree it was well worth the wait.

From being the Next Botham in 1998, to the Fat Lad in 2000 and finally World Beater in 2005, this is his journey over the years.

ps. The Red line indicates the point when his batting average finally overtook his bowling average (the hallmark of a Genuine allrounder).

35 years, 323 days and counting (down)...

2005-12-30T08:53:00.000Z

There is nothing sadder then watching a great player struggle at the end of his career, and they don't come any greater than the Pigeon himself.

Six months ago, McGrath was Australia's undisputed strike bowler (of course along with Warne) but since coming back from his freak injury after Lord's 2005, his Strike Rate and Bowling Average has been on a decline.

Though he did finish the Melbourne Test with 4 wickets, he has taken just 31 wickets in the last 9 Tests (excluding Lord's) at SR of 62.13 and Average of 28.52 (compared to a career SR of 51.3 and Average of 21.44). But more importantly, he rarely looks like taking wickets these days. His is not accurate (one of his biggest strengths) and he is (now) just a line and length bowler who can be taken apart.

Question is, will he realize his time is up, or will he prove me wrong with another "5 for nothing" performance at Sydney next week? Either way, I will be surprised if he is still around for the Ashes next year, let alone the World Cup 2007.

Anyway, here is his Cumulative Strike Rate and Bowling Average since Lord's 2005 (included)...

(click on image to view)

SRT Vs SG (again)

2005-12-29T16:08:00.000Z

I know its a few days old, but I came across this article by Ashok Mitra in the Telegraph, so couldn't resist.

(click on image to view)

Now if only someone could point Mr Mitra to this blog so he can shut up, once and for all. In case he still misses the point (or the lines), SG's Average since the World cup excluding the Minnows is 27.08 (as opposed to SRT 42.31). Or in other words he has scored 1083 runs in 40 completed innings compared to Sachins 1,777 in 42 (again excluding the minnows). And no, his stats including the minnows dont get any better either....

Walk (but don't hop) like an Aussie!

2005-12-29T08:31:00.000Z

More Spaghetti here, but this time of the shorter version.

(click to view larger image)

Nothing special if you look at this in isolation. However, if you merge India’s ranking in the ODI’s with that of its Test Ranking during the corresponding period, you get an interesting picture.

(click to view larger image)

Is it pure coincidence that India's ODI and Test Performances have finally began to move upwards, and more importantly, merge since Greg Chappell took over?

ps. Apologies, my laptop is still acting up. and I am working on an Italian computer, hence the Months are in Italian. But you get the point. I hope...

Break-down

2005-12-28T07:53:00.000Z

Guys,

Sorry for ignoring the blog these last few days. I am on Skiing holiday in the Italian Alps but worse, my Laptop's gone kaput. While the former was a welcome and planned break, the latter definitely wasn't.

And while I am busy trying to sort out my Skiing and the Laptop (both of which can be, on a cold icy day, a real pain in the backside), here is wishing you all a (Belated) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year...

One more to go...

2005-12-22T19:26:00.000Z

So India has finally reached the Nr. 2 spot in the ICC Test Championship (which indecently is the only Sporting Championship in the world without a Winner).

While we all know that India is some way away from reaching the top, lets not forget that India’s progress in the last four years (in Test cricket) has been remarkable.

Here is the journey of the various Teams since the ICC Test Championship was introduced in 2001. Looks like Spaghetti to me, but that could be because I spend too much time in Italy....

(Click on the image to view)

Poor Warney

2005-12-20T13:13:00.000Z

So Warney's got every right to be worried that there are "some blokes" out there who bowl from one end all day and will eventually break his record.

After all, he only got to bowl 37% of his Team's overs in this match, which interestingly is being played in Perth (today, he 'merely' bowled 39% of his Teams overs, i.e. 35 overs).

And not to forget that he only got to bowl 33% of the overs during the Ashes (toping at 39% at the Oval in the last Test).

Anyway, a quick look at Warne's increasing workload this year (Given that the Aussie bowling attack looks more like that of the Lankans, I think its not just Warne who needs to be worried here).

India's Most Valuable Player

2005-12-18T08:01:00.000Z

He is, in my mind, India's Nr. 1 Match winner of all times. Sachin, Rahul, Kapil & Sunil; take a bow.

And on the eve of his 100th Test, his strike rate over the years...

(click on image to view)

Games BCCI plays

2005-12-16T12:54:00.001Z

No, I don't mean the political ones, but the ones it has sent "Team BCCI" to play since the 1990/91 season (Home and away).

If only they spend less time on playing "Games" on a regular basis, and more time playing Regular games...

(click on image to view)

Ganguly and the BIG-3

2005-12-15T13:50:00.000Z

While Ganguly's own performance dipped since he became captain, that of Dravid, Tendulkar and Kumble definately improved under him.

Was he plain lucky to have them in his team or did he really know how to get the best out of them? Guess we will never know...

Anyway, a simple graphic showing how the BIG-3 performed under Ganguly.

(click on image to view)

Milestones

2005-12-14T17:13:00.000Z

Came across Dravid's milestones on Midday
Could not resist a comparison with his contemporaries

(click on image to view a larger version).

Can SA Defend 169 Today

2005-11-19T12:38:00.000Z

Look at these stats and judge for yourself...

(All these stats are for Games that have been 45 oer or more and excludes No-results)

1. In only 20 out 300 games has a team defended a total of less than 170 in a Game.

2. South Africa has done it thrice:
Against WI in 92/93, Capetown (SA 140, WI - 136 all out)
Against Eng in 95/96, East London (SA 129, Eng 115 all out)
Against England in 2000, Joh'brg (SA 149, Eng 111 all out)

3. In India, the only time it has happened was when Kenya defeated WI in the 1996 world cup (Kenya 166, WI 93 all out) .

4. The lowest total India failed to chase in India was against WI in 1987/88 in Guwahati (It was a 45 over game) (WI 187 in 45 overs, Ind: 135 all out)

5. The Lowest Total SA have defended in India was 214 against SL in 1993/94 in Guwahati (SL 136 all out)

6. The Lowest Total SA have defended against India (in India) was 249 in 1996/97 in Jaipur (India ended on 222/7)

7. The lowest Total SA have defended against India (home and away) is 235 in Kenya in 1999/00 (India finished on 209/10)

8. Average First Innings score at Bangalore is 255!

9. The lowest total defended in Bangalore is by England in 1993 (Eng 218/9 in 47 overs, India 170 all out)

400,000 runs and more Stats!

2005-09-20T09:12:00.000+01:00

When Strauss hit Lee for a 4 in the 57th over of the first innings of the Oval Test, the English score moved to 223/4 (Strauss to 97 and Flintoff was batting on 44). What is significant about this is that it was the 400,000th run scored by England in Test cricket!!!

And in the second innings, when Peitersen eaised Warne through cover for a single in the 46th over, England moved on to 172/5. Again what is significant about this score is that it was the 400,000th Test run scored in England by all Test Teams including the Neutral SA/Aus games played in 1912. If you exclude these games, the total stands at 397,937. That means, the 2063 runs required should be scored sometime in the series against Sri Lanka next year.

Watch out for another 400,000 milestone for England!!!

Another interesting stat: When Trescothick flicked Anwar Hossain Monir of Bangladesh for a single in the 1st Test at Lord’s to move to 149 (eng 335/1), it was the 100,000th Test run scored at Lord’s in games involving England!

And talking of Bangladesh, they are also created a ‘bit’ of history by taking the 50,000th Test wicket. It happened in the 1st Test at Dakha between Bangladesh and West indies in the 2002/03 series. And it wasn’t a bowler who took that wicket, but a fielder who ran out Darren Ganga on 40 (West indies 417/6).

New Zealand: 278/9. Can India Win?

2005-09-02T12:56:00.000+01:00

Statistically speaking, highly unlikely!

Why?

Because of the 55 times India has been set a target of 275 or more in a 50 over match, they have lost 46 times and won only 8 times (one was a no result). A Win/Lose ratio of 0.174 does not look promising!

Against New Zealand, they have only won once chasing more than 275 (in 1988/89 at Vadodora chasing 281) and lost 3 times (1995/96 Nagpur, 1998/99 Christchurch and 1999/00 Rajkot).

And to make it worse, they have won only once chasing the 275+outside the sub-continent (against england in the famous 2002 Natwest finals) .

And if 270+ seems too much, here is some more stats regarding run chases:

Chasing 250+, won 25, Lost 83.
Chasing 260+, won 18, Lost 65.

If I were a betting man, I would bet on India losing this game. But they say, cricket is a funny old game....

Trent bridge - Vital Stats

2005-08-25T10:34:00.000+01:00

Bat first or second?

While most teams prefer to bat first after winning the toss, here are some interesting statistics worth considering; In the last ten Tests, the team batting first has Won 2, Lost 4 and Drawn 4. Looks like the pitch eases after the first day and is a beauty to bat on day 2 & 3.

This should throw up an intresting dilemma for the captains after winning the Toss. Will Ponting repeat what he did at Edgebaston? Or will Vaughan want to change a 'winning habit'? I recon not. I think it will be a 'we will bat first' decision...

What's a good First innings score?

Average first innings score on this ground is 326 but for the last 10 Tests it is 408. England's first innings average score is 325, (overall), 344 (last 1o0 and 271 (against Australia).

Interestingly, England have never lost to Australia after scoring more then 200 in first innings of a match. And the only time a team has lost after scoring 400 in the first innings was England against South Africa in 1951 when they made 419/5dec.

I recon anywhere between 400 and 450 is a winning score. Ok, 420 so the Aussies know they have history against then if they want to beat England :-)

Twenty Wickets

2005-08-17T12:39:00.000+01:00

You need 20 wickets to win a Test match, so I thought it will be interesting to see how Austrlia and England compare in that respect. This analysis is purely mathematical, but it does make interesting reading.

I have taken the Wickets per test as a basis for this analysis and looked at the records of the last 25 Test for the English bolwers and last 50 for the Aussies to reflect their domination periods. Also, since Lee and Kasprowicz have not played in all tests (and rarely together), I have combined their records (25 each).

Ignoring Giles for a moment, if we compare the Stats for Australia and England, we see an interesting scenario:

Austrlia (Wickets per Test)
McGrath-4.62, Warne-5.38, Gillespie-3.52, Lee+Kasprowicz-3.42 (3.56 and 3.28 respectively)

England (wickets per Test)
Harmison-4.32,Hoggard-3.92, Flintoff-3.76, Jones-3.18 (over 17 Tests)

This give the Aussies a 'potential' to take 16.94 or 17 wickets per Test whereas England have a 'potential' to take 15.18 or 15 wickers per Test.

Now add Giles (2.92 wickets per test), to the equation and England have a 'potential' to take 18.1 wickets per Test, thus giving them the edge over the Aussies. Add to the fact that Gillespie is not delivering and Clarke will not be able to bowl anytime soon, its clear that the Aussies have their job cut out to get England out twice. Depending on Warne & McGrath to run through the English batting line-up everytime is going to be a bit ask.

In my opinion, they need a genuine all-rounder to replace Katich and a replacement for Gillespie (only one wont do it). I think Symonds and Kaspa might be an option.

But what do the Aussies do about Hayden who, in Damien Fleming's words yerterday was made to look like a 'monkey' by Flintoff. But that's a different topic of discussion...

Closest Draws

2005-08-16T08:13:00.000+01:00

This is not the first time that the Aussies have managed a draw after being 9 wickets down. In fact, they have done it three times in the past.

1. Vs the West Indies in 1961 at the Adelaide Oval. Needing 460 to win in 120 overs, the Aussies were reeling at 31/3 at End of day 4. They were then down to 207 for 9 with more than 25 overs left on the last day. KD Mackay (62 no) and last man LF Kline (15 no) hung on for 109 minutes to hold on to a draw. Ritche Benaud played in the game; he should remember (he took 5 wickets and scored 77 in the first innins, but did not do too well with Bat or Ball in the second).

2. Vs the West Indies in 1968/69 at the Adelaide Oval (again). Needing 360 to win on the last day, the Aussies were 333 for 9 with 10 minutes left. AP Sheahan (11 no) and AN Connolly (6 no) hung on for a draw.

3. Vs New Zealand in 1987/88 at Melbourne. Needing 247 to win on the last day, the aussies were sitting pretty at 209 for 5. Hadlee then took 3 wickets (and Brackewell 1) to reduce the Aussies to 227 for 9. CJ McDermott (10 runs in 49 balls) and MR Whitney (2 runs in 18 balls hung on for a draw).

Against England, their closed draw (prior to OldTrafford 2005) was in 1974/75 in Melbourne. Needing 246 to win, they were 238 for 8 when play ended.

And this is not the first time Old trafford has witnessed a close draw. Back in 1946, needing 278 to win, India hung on to a draw and finished on 152/9.

India-Centuries in 4th innings

2005-08-15T17:17:00.000+01:00

S Mushtaq Ali 106 WI 1948/49 Kolkata DRAW
VS Hazare 122 WI 1948/49 Mumbai (BS) DRAW
AA Baig 112 Eng 1959 Manchester LOST
PR Umrigar 118 Eng 1959 Manchester LOST
ML Jaisimha 101 Aus 1967/68 Brisbane LOST
SM Gavaskar 117* WI 1970/71 Bridgetown DRAW
SM Gavaskar 102 WI 1975/76 Port of Spain WON
GR Viswanath 112 WI (Same game as above)
SM Gavaskar 113 Aus 1977/78 Brisbane LOST
SM Gavaskar 221 Eng 1979 The Oval DRAW
DB Vengsarkar 146* Pak 1979/80 Delhi DRAW
SV Manjrekar 113* Pak 1989/90 Karachi DRAW
SR Tendulkar 119* Eng 1990 Manchester DRAW
*M Azharuddin 106 Aus 1991/92 Adelaide LOST
M Azharuddin 108* SL 1997 Colombo (SSC) DRAW
R Dravid 103* NZ 1998/99 Hamilton DRAW
SC Ganguly 101* NZ (Same game as above)
SR Tendulkar 136 Pak 1998/99 Chennai LOST
AB Agarkar 109* Eng 2002 Lord's LOST

Old Trafford - Day 1

2005-08-14T11:40:00.000+01:00

McGrath Wicketless
This is the 11th time McGrath has gone wicketless in the 1st or 2nd Innings of a match. His figures of 86/0 in this match is his most expensive wicketless performance (previous being 83/0 against WI in Adeliade in 2001). On 4 previous occasions, he has gone wicketless in the whole match.

Old Trafford - Day 1 Lunch

2005-08-11T13:06:00.000+01:00

What's a good First innings score?
With England on 93/1 at Lunch, I guess the question on most minds will be "What should England aim for in the first innings". Some of these stats might help you judge for yourselves:

The Old trafford pitch has got better for batting over the years. The average 1st innings score on this ground is 326, but in the last 10 matches, it has gone up to 385!

Only 7 times has a team lost to the Aussies after scoring more then 400 in the first innings (and Won 28 times, 26 draws and 1 Tie).

And only twice after scoring more then 450 (england in 1928/29 & 1948).

Only two teams have lost the game at Old trafford after scoring 300 runs in the first innings:
South Africa in 1947 after scoring 339 & West Indies in 2004 after scoring 395 for 9d

I recon 450 is a great score, but England can settle for 400+. Remember, they have a good bowling attack

Personal Landmarks
I guess we are all aware of Warne approaching 600 wickets. Couple of other worth mentioning.

Lee has just taken his 150th test wicket in his 40th Test.

And Treskothick needs just 31 runs to complete 500o runs in his 64th Test (he will cross 5000 when he scores 66).

Old Trafford - Vital Stats

2005-08-10T15:56:00.000+01:00

Bat or Bowl?
England have drawn 19, won 13 and lost 3 when batting first compared to 14 draws, 8 wins and 11 loses when batting second.

Against the Aussies on this ground, their record is D6, W5, L1 when batting first and D7, W2, L6 when Batting second.

It's a no-brainer; win the toss and bat at Old Trafford.

Highest Team Totals
England
First innings of Match: 627/9d against Aus, 3rd Test 1934 (Draw)
Second innings of Match: 611 ao against Aus, 3rd Test 1964 (Draw)
Third innings of Match: 404 ao against Aus, 5th Test 1981 (Won)
Fourth innings of Match: 332 ao against Aus, 1st Test 1993 (Lost)

Australia
First innings of Match: 656/8d against Eng, 4th Test 1964 (Draw)
Second innings of Match: 491 ao against Eng, 3rd Test 1934 (Draw)
Third innings of Match: 432 ao against Eng, 4th Test 1961 (Won) &
432/5d against Eng, 1st Test 1993 (Won)
Fourth innings of Match: 402 ao against Aus, 5th Test 1981 (Lost)

Highest ever by any team: 656/8d by Aus against Eng 3rd Test 1964 (Draw)

Run chases:
Highest Successful run chases:
England 231/3 in 65.4 overs 3rd Test Vs WI-2004
RSA 145/7 in 30.3 overs 3rd Test Vs Eng-1955

Highest Successful run chases - England Vs Australia
England 107/6 in 77.2 overs 1st Test in 1886
Australia 125/7 in 84.3 overs 2nd Test in 1896
England 82/1 in 29.1 overs 2nd Test in 1977
Australia 81/1 in 32.5 overs 4th Test in 1989

Highest Ever Losing 4th innings totals
Aus 402 chasing 506 in 5th Test Vs Eng 1981
Ind 376 chasing 548 in 4th Test Vs Eng 1959
Eng 332 chasing 512 in 1st Test Vs Aus 1993

Highest to Draw
Ind 343/6 in 90 overs chasing 408 in 2nd Test Vs Eng in 1990

Warne Factor
Warne has taken 17 wickets in Two tests at 14.58 with 6/48 in the 3rd Test in 1997 being his best. He is also two wickets away from taking 150 English wickets.

Vital Statistics

2005-08-10T15:05:00.000+01:00

Over the years, one of my biggest frustration use to be getting meaningful and up to date statistics while watching a game of cricket. I had to either wait for the commentator to dish out the statistics or spend time on the web looking for the information on websites and blogs.

In the last year or so, I have build my own database and refer to it on a regular basis while watching cricket. What is the average first innings score at Mumbai? Who has taken most number of wickets at Old Trafford, etc. etc.

Realizing that there are thousands of other cricket fans who would love to have access to this information, I decided to set-up this blog. The idea is to update this on a regular basis during the course of Test matches and One-Day games with vital and relavant statistics.

At the end of the day, statistics count for nothing, but perfect statistics can be a real pleasure!

36-24-36...