India–behind the curve in T20s

In a see-sawing match, a floundering and error-prone India overcame a plucky Bangladesh to win the match and the series. For a while, when Indian were under the pump, it looked like Bangladesh would take the game away but one over turned the match on its head and India was a relieved team to walk away with the series in tow; just a few days earlier, India had lost its first ever T20 match to the eastern neighbours. Yes, the Indian team was shorn of some of its biggest stars for this series, but Bangladesh was missing some of its stars as well. While this defeat didn’t quite feel like the sucker punch that led India to prematurely exit the World Cup in 2007, it had been a long while coming.

About three years ago, Mushfiqur Rahim had almost dragged his team across the line in a pulsating encounter at the 2016 World T20; but somehow, that Bangladesh team had found a way to lose the match at the death, losing three wickets in the last three balls. Such a hiccup wouldn’t happen this time around—Bangladesh didn’t lose the opportunity to beat its more fancied opponent. But these results were more a reflection of how much India has been behind the curve in the sport’s shortest format for a while now.

India’s excellent test team and its depth has been a topic of discussion recently, and rightly so. Additionally its ODI team is possibly the best-ever in its cricketing history. But the story is quite different in the T20 format.  India started the series in the fifth place—a fair reflection of where it stands in this format. It is hard to believe that a team which took to the format like a duck to the water in the inaugural World T20, and has, arguably, the world’s best T20 domestic league is an also-ran in this format.

Over the last few years, the Indian team management has been treating T20s as a proving ground for fresh talent seeking a place in the Indian team. Back in 2017, Ravi Shastri said:

“T20 cricket for us, we don’t care. You win or lose, it doesn’t matter, but give youngsters the opportunity so you come to know who is in the fray for 2019.”

Many, many matches later, India still doesn’t know the identity of the middle order or that of the keeper. What is worse, by conflating the two formats, it is doing a disservice to both. This has been happening with such regularity that it isn’t even funny anymore.

Though cricket fans may view T20 as a compressed version of the ODI, it is fundamentally a different sport. You may argue that it is still 11-on-11, played in the same stadium, with same rules and so on, but the grammar of the sport makes it very different from the two longer formats. The balls per dismissal hovers ~65 in tests and ~38 in ODIs. But in T20Is, this number dips drastically to ~17 but you still have ten wickets! Meaning, on average, a batsman in T20Is faces about three overs, and he has to maximize returns in this short stint at the wicket, which turns traditional cricket thinking on its head. So go-to phrases from the commentator/TV pundit manual such as “playing yourself in”, “set batsman” and “why didn’t he just take a single after scoring a big shot instead of going for another” don’t apply in this format, more so in the first innings when you are looking to maximize the score. Therefore, T20 batting is the antithesis of batting wisdom in the longer formats.

And this is where India has always missed a trick—by not focussing on strike rate or run rate. Primarily, what has been holding India back has been a conservative approach to batting—an extension of the affliction affecting the ODI team as well. Over the last five years, against top teams, India has been the best side while chasing, but has an average record while setting the target—suggesting that India struggles to read the conditions right and set an appropriate target more often than not.

At the top of the order are Rohit Sharma, Shikhar Dhawan, and Virat Kohli, the most-feared top order in ODI cricket today; but they don’t lead the pack in T20Is in terms of strike rate (only Rohit makes the top 10). One look at the IPL stats, it is the same story there as well. Virat Kohli has made an unearthly 60 runs per dismissal in T20Is over the last 5 years. But guess what? At his strike rate of 139, when <7 wickets is enough to last the entire 20 overs in the average T20I, two Evin Lewises will overcome his output on a consistent basis. To be fair, Rohit Sharma has upped his game over the last few years (like he did so in the second match), but there is perhaps only one spot (at most) for a “classical batsman” who can motor along as other players “explode” around this fulcrum. But what has affected the team over the last few years is that it is filled with several “me-too” batsmen who play with this attitude. Instead, Indian batsmen should learn to value their wickets far lesser in the T20 format and learn to “go for it” from ball 1.

The problem with the batting is only emblematic of the larger problem affecting the Indian team—it is too slow to adapt to the evolution of the format around the cricketing world and picking up best practices. It was too late to the wrist spin party; it took a really long time to give chances to spin-bowling all-rounders such as Krunal Pandya who have much better batting chops than Axar Patel (this is in spite of having seen good performances in the IPL); it isn’t thinking of experimenting by sending a pinch-hitter at the top of the order (in the mould of Sunil Narine or Moeen Ali) to maximize returns; heck, BCCI doesn’t even allow players to participate in overseas leagues even when there are no domestic or India commitments. No wonder India’s understanding of the game is quite limited.

With the 2020 World T20 looming large, and with the team falling short in previous editions, India should pull its socks up in the upcoming 20-odd matches in the format if it has to take a serious step towards correcting the anomaly.

 

Why India’s home streak in tests has to be put into perspective

Unsurprisingly, India has won the test series against South Africa with a test match to spare. And though the test match at Ranchi is irrelevant to the outcome of the series, valuable test championship points are there for grabs. Though this series result was largely expected with the recent retirements of several South African stalwarts, the manner in which this was achieved was particularly impressive from India’s standpoint. Especially, the way the Indian pacers out-bowled their South African counterparts was heartening, to say the least.

During the Pune test, the South African batsman Temba Bavuma conceded that second test was played on a “more South African type of conditions” ground. The contrast from four years ago could not be starker; back then, the Saffers complained about “designer pitches”, which suited the bowling attack of the Indian team. But one statistic sort of slipped under the radar—this Indian team has won its 11^th consecutive series at home, a streak longer than any other in cricketing history; not even the mighty Aussies or the West Indies in their pomp managed to win 11 consecutive test series at home (although, it must be added that Australia won 10 consecutive series twice).

Given this, why isn’t India’s streak at home celebrated as a hallmark of cricketing excellence? Why isn’t there much myth-making around India’s obviously incredible record at home? Yes, Steve Waugh did label it the “Final frontier”, but it has rarely featured since in the cricketing folklore.

Let us put India’s streak in perspective. In 2010s alone, India has lost only 4 test matches at home  out of 47 played, giving a scarcely believable W/L ratio of 8.5. And yet, I suspect many Indian fans will pooh-pooh this with the oft-repeated “Tigers at home, lambs abroad” punchline. While there was some truth to this two decades ago (I’m looking at you, the decade of the ‘90s), its home record is nothing to be scoffed at after the turn of the millennium.

Since 1970, 4 sides have had exceptional home records (Australia, Pakistan, South Africa, India), with little to choose between them over nearly a 50-year period; each one of these teams won between 2.75 to 3 tests to every test lost. While there might be allegations of biased umpires and designer pitches, it can’t be denied that this is an exceptionally consistent winning record at home over nearly five decades.

Slice this even finer, and three sides stand out. Lo and behold, the present Indian side is in great company (it must be noted that the overall Win% was much lower when the West Indies were trampling every side around the world).

Team (Era)	Won	Lost	W/L	Win%
West Indies (1978-1994)	31	5	6.2	58.5
Australia (1995-2007)	58	7	8.3	75.3
India (2007-2019*)	41	5	8.2	66.1

*all stats correct until the third test

Even if you were to examine teams under long-serving captains at home, 3 Indian captains—Azhar, Dhoni, and Kohli are close to the very top, once again showing that India have been formidable at home over multiple decades. Whichever way you look at it, these are insane numbers. However, there isn’t much acknowledgement about India’s home prowess, either from home or from abroad. Quite often, eyebrows are raised and aspersions are cast on India’s spinners abroad, especially outside the subcontinent. While there is some truth to this statement, it begs the question—if India is so friendly for spinners, why haven’t opposition spinners been able to take advantage (like Saqlain Mushtaq did)?

	2016-present averages			2012-2015 averages
Host country	Home spinner	Away spinner	Away to Home Ratio	Home spinner	Away spinner	Away to Home Ratio
India	25.32	51.18	2.02	21.67	32.22	1.49
Sri Lanka	28.38	31.42	1.11	27.51	33.09	1.20
Bangladesh	24.27	27.86	1.15	41.02	43.12	1.05
England	32.49	38.07	1.17	33.88	40.34	1.19
Australia	36.68	64.04	1.75	36.19	66.46	1.84
West Indies	41.51	29.88	0.72	30.79	35.77	1.16
South Africa	34.11	52.08	1.53	38.05	45.3	1.19
Zimbabwe	48.17	23.74	0.49	36.33	26.84	0.74
New Zealand	48	42.95	0.89	46.21	61.38	1.33
Pakistan/UAE	26.24	32.76	1.25	27.12	45.33	1.67

If one were to look at bowling averages of spinners in various countries (classified by home versus away), one can clearly see the locations where home spinners have enjoyed bowling—largely, the subcontinent. However, it can also be observed that in countries such as India, South Africa, and Australia, the home spinners dominate the away spinners by a large margin (as seen in ratio of bowling averages of away spinners to that of the home spinners). While the latter two can be labelled as pacer-friendly countries, opposition spinners should still be able to do perform in Indian conditions, isn’t it? Additionally, India is not as spin-friendly as it was between 2012 and 2015—meaning, results over the last four years should be viewed from this perspective.

In fact, while Indian pundits are trigger-happy in shooting down the performances of Indian spinners, they have performed really well abroad post-2015; coincidentally, it is also the time when the Indian pacers turned on the heat on the opposition batsmen in foreign conditions, pointing back to one of our earliest analyses on the necessity for pace-bowling support for spinners to perform to their fullest potential. In a similar vein, it is certainly worth wondering why certain pacers (looking at you, Jimmy Anderson and Vernon Philander) are not as effective as some of the legendary fast bowlers such as Malcolm Marshall, Richard Hadlee, Dale Steyn, Glenn McGrath, Alan Donald and others, who performed in Asia as well. Far too often, the Indian media is guilty of overvaluing Indian frailties abroad compared to that of the overseas media about their records in India/the subcontinent.

Therefore, there is no harm in recognizing and saluting India’s record at home—we should give credit where it is due. Over the last 20 years, it has taken superhuman efforts from South Africa, Australia (with the last day of the Chennai test rained out), and England to win a series in India. It is time that a test series victory in India is valourized and anointed as the toughest assignment in cricket.

 

 

 

 

 

The World Cup 2019 Dream Team

What a fantastic World Cup we’ve all been treated to! Midway through the tournament, the tournament looked a damp squib but in the end, fans were treated to a spectacle in the knockout stages with two rivetting matches that provided plenty of excitement. England finally shed the bridesmaid’s tag to win their first-ever World Cup (they had lost three previous finals) amid dramatic scenes at Lord’s. The tagline was one year too early, but the World Cup did finally “come home”.

Over the course of the tournament, fans were treated to some fine cricketing performances. For a while, it seemed that Sachin Tendulkar’s run tally of 673 runs in the 2003 tournament would come under threat but after the final, it is still standing; the wickets tally was surpassed though, rather silently. Now that the World Cup is done and dusted, it is time to look back at this tournament fondly by recognizing the players who did well and construct a World Cup 2019 XI (with 4 extra players to complete a 15-member squad).

What would the criteria for such a team be? The players should have played in at least 7 matches, scored at least 300 runs (for the batsmen), or taken 10 wickets (for the bowlers) with some leeway for the all-rounders. Why the 7 matches? Sri Lanka suffered two washouts and it would be unfair to exclude their players for no fault of their own. How should the team be set up? For the high scoring pitches at the start or the slower pitches that dominated the business end? How big a role will statistics play a role in setting up this team? What about spinners, who turned more ineffective as the tournament raged on? So many points to ponder about.  For the purpose of this exercise, both objective statistics and subjective judgements (based on who influenced their team’s fortunes in the tournament) will be used to select the team members. Also, players who can play in various situations and give tactical flexibility will be favoured over the others. With this in mind, let us proceed to select the players.

Openers (1 and 2)

Two men, Rohit Sharma and David Warner utterly dominated with the bat, making huge scores throughout the tournament. That Rohit Sharma was utterly pivotal to India’s chances was obvious from the fact that India lost their way after he was dismissed against England and New Zealand. Warner was similarly influential for Australia but selecting both of them in the eleven poses a potential problem. The Warner that batted in this World Cup was very different to the player that bulldozed bowling attacks in the past. Hence, pairing him with Rohit, who also takes his time to get going, would pose a problem in the first powerplay. Therefore, Jason Roy, who blasted his way at the top of the order, is better suited to complement Rohit at the top of the order.

Rohit Sharma: 9 innings, 648 runs @81.00 average, 98.33 SR, 5 hundreds and 1 fifty.

Jason Roy: 7 innings, 443 runs @63.28 average, 115.36 SR, 1 hundred and 4 fifties.

Numbers 3, 4 and 5

This World Cup has had a surfeit of players who have done very well in the first four batting positions and hence at least one of them has to be selected “out of position”. Who can argue against Kane Williamson, New Zealand’s most influential player and the Man of the series? His playing style is well suited to absorbing pressure after an early loss as well as to motoring along in the middle overs; Williamson captaining the side is a no-brainer as well. Similarly, Joe Root’s assured presence in the middle order was crucial to England’s World Cup fortunes and it is hard to argue against either of these two fine batsmen. Number five is a tough call, but I’m going with Shakib Al Hasan. The world’s best ODI all-rounder owned this tournament with the bat, with only one non-fifty score in his 8 innings (and not to forget, 11 wickets as well). In an alternate universe, he could have easily walked away with the Man of the Series trophy with his superlative display. Though it is a tad unfair to push him to five (as he batted at number 3 for Bangladesh), he’s historically batted lower down the order and he’s being punished for his competence with this harsh call. Other contenders for the above slots were Babar Azam, Nicholas Pooran and Virat Kohli, who were at least one level below these performances.

Kane Williamson: 9 innings, 578 runs @82.57 average, 74.96 SR, 2 hundreds and 2 fifties.

Joe Root: 11 innings, 556 runs @ 61.77 average, 89.53 SR, 2 hundreds and 3 fifties.

Shakib Al Hasan: 8 innings, 606 runs @86.57 average, 96.03 SR, 2 hundreds and 5 fifites; 11 wickets @ 36.27, 5.39 ER, 1 five-wicket haul.

Numbers 6 and 7

The lower middle order needs players who can strike the big blows from the word go and hence the focus is on batting firepower. But considering that we haven’t yet selected a wicketkeeper, one eye should be kept on this point as well. Fortunately, Australia’s Alex Carey has done well on both counts and walks into the side ahead of Mushfiqur Rahim due to his big hitting ability. Jos Buttler was another wicketkeeping contender but he didn’t shine throughout the tournament to make the side. Ahead of him is the man of the match in the final, Ben Stokes, who has been excellent for England with the bat and handy with the ball. Stokes too batted mostly at 5 for England but unfortunately finds himself one position down due to his flexibility. Jimmy Neesham came close to inclusion the side with his 15 wickets and 232 runs, but his batting strike rate is the reason he doesn’t make the side. Hardik Pandya also misses out due to his bowling profligacy.

Ben Stokes: 10 innings, 465 runs @ 66.42 average, 93.18 SR and 5 fifties; 7 wickets @ 35.14 average and 4.83 ER.

Alex Carey (wk): 9 innings, 375 runs @ 62.5 average, 104.16 SR and 3 fifties; 18 catches and 2 stumpings.

Fast bowlers:

Overall, fast bowlers have had an excellent world cup, dominating the tournament from start to end. Foremost among them has been Mitchell Starc, who broke McGrath’s single World Cup tally with a monstrous 27 wickets and should be the first name on the sheet. Three other exciting fast bowlers have been very influential—Lockie Ferguson, Jofra Archer and Jasprit Bumrah. With their collective talents, any team should be able to inflict enough pain to the opposition at any stage of the innings; since only 3 can make the 11, Ferguson has to sit this one out due to a slightly worse economy rate. A special mention has to be made to acknowledge the contribution of four other left arm seamers—Trent Boult, Mohammad Amir, Shaheen Afridi, and Mustafizur Rehman—all of whom were fantastic but miss out due to the excellence of the above players.

Mitchell Starc: 10 innings, 27 wickets @ 18.59 average, 5.43 ER, 2 five-wicket hauls and 2 four-wicket hauls

Jofra Archer: 11 innings, 20 wickets @ 23.05 average and 4.57 ER

Jasprit Bumrah: 9 innings, 18 wickets @ 20.61 average, 4.41 ER and 1 four-wicket haul.

Spinner:

As the tournament progressed, the influence of the spinners waned and as a result, they don’t feature high up the wickets tally. South Africa’s Imran Tahir is the lone candidate here and it can be debated whether he deserves to get into the side ahead of many fast bowlers or Jimmy Neesham. Ultimately, what tipped the scales in his favour is the variety that he provides; besides, he can bowl in the first powerplay too which adds to the mix.

Imran Tahir: 8 innings, 11 wickets @ 34.00 average, 4.92 ER

The above team has all bases covered—hard-hitting batsmen, mix of industry and resilience in the middle orders, batting depth, bowling parsimony and wicket-taking potency all through the innings. The four substitutes have been chosen based on who narrowly missed making the original side and give enough cover to the team in case of injury.

World Cup 2019 Dream team: Rohit Sharma, Jason Roy, Kane Williamson (c), Joe Root, Shakib Al Hasan, Ben Stokes, Alex Carey (wk), Mitchell Starc, Jofra Archer, Jasprit Bumrah, Imran Tahir

Substitutes: David Warner, Mushfiqur Rahim, Jimmy Neesham, Lockie Ferguson

Going for the knockout punch

After more than a month of 45 matches in the league phase of the 2019 World Cup, the business end of the tournament is finally here. Just three matches remain in the tournament—the most significant matches of them all. Doing (or not doing) well in these matches can leave deep imprints in the collective memory of fans and in the annals of cricketing history. Have a doubt? Ask South Africa or New Zealand. The former usually do well in the group stages and the mere mention of the word “knockout” is enough to bring out their worst—or at least, that is what conventional wisdom says. This time though, they haven’t made it this far. The Kiwis, on the other hand, are perennial overachievers, often making it to the semifinals of a major tournament ahead of much-fancied sides with greater resources. This time too, they have sneaked through in fourth place.

In the next three matches, league position counts for zilch. Nada. Or nothing, if you want to use plain English. Knockout matches typically tend to be tense, cagey affairs where the formbook can be thrown out of the window, and teams have traditionally chosen to bat first to impose scoreboard pressure on their opponents. Given all this, what can India do to maximize chances of victory come next Sunday?

Initially, it seemed that injuries may have thrown the team off balance. Shikhar Dhawan’s injury was no doubt a big setback but K L Rahul has taken baby steps towards stepping into the southpaw’s very big shoes in ICC tournaments; although, Rahul is a bit similar to Rohit Sharma at the top of the order (both take their time to get going) and this puts undue pressure on the rest of the team. Similarly, Bhuvi’s injury lengthened India’s tail to Hanuman-esque proportions but Shami’s bowling has been a revelation. The muddle at number 4 still exists but Rishabh Pant’s inclusion seems to have injected some power and dynamism into the side.

In terms of results and performance with respect to expectation though, there is very little that has surprised fans about the Indian team performance. For instance, we did know that Bumrah was one of the best bowlers in the world—his showing has only reinforced this fact. Similarly, the team being reliant on the top order wasn’t a major mystery either. While India closed out two tight games against Bangladesh and Afghanistan (games that they may have lost 20 years ago due to lack of quality bowling personnel), the reverse against England once again exposed the chronic deficiencies of this team which shouldn’t be swept under the carpet after a couple of easy wins. The soft underbelly of the team that is the middle order still is an issue and God forbid, should the top order have an off day, the team will mostly fall short of its target. The other issue is that of taking wickets in the first half of the innings, which leaves India playing catch-up with respect to the game. In the knockouts, they will be playing against (possibly) two formidable opponents who can exploit these weakness to their advantage.

Therefore, to do well one has to pay heed to some surprising trends that have played out a bit differently compared to expectation, particularly as the tournament has progressed. Over the last 4 years, until this World Cup, England has been the second-most expensive place for non-home bowlers (behind Pakistan, where only a paltry 3 matches have been played), with bowlers conceding 6.21 runs per over. Some of it is no doubt due to the belligerence of the England team, but simultaneously, it is also true that England is also the second-most expensive place for home bowlers as well (also behind Pakistan), at 5.88 runs per over. At this World Cup though, the average runs per over has been 5.63, with five teams below this figure. Meaning, the pitches haven’t been as flat as one would have initially feared.

Second, though 5.63 corresponds to a score of ~281, there has been a distinct advantage in batting first if a decent score is posted on the board. This tournament has produced 25 scores of 250 and above in the first innings of the 45 matches. Of these matches, only two (West Indies and Sri Lanka) have been lost by the team batting first, suggesting that the par-score is much lesser than the suggested 281 and that scoreboard pressure has had an influence so far. With jaded pitches, one can expect this to be exacerbated in the final 3 matches.

Third, the effectiveness of spinners has only come down as the tournament progressed. Between the 2015 and 2019 World cups, fast bowlers and some leg spinners had done well in England. But if one were to examine the statistics from the first and second halves of the league phase, they are as different as chalk and cheese; in the former, leg spinners have held their own with the fast men but in the space of a couple of weeks, the their returns have been less flattering. Therefore, it is time to re-think the two spinners strategy.

Therefore, for India, the way to go is to make minor changes to increase their chances of victory. See out the new ball challenge against Starc, Boult, Archer and co. with a mix of caution and calculated aggression, with one of the top 3 staying on till the 35^th over (Kohli is due for a big score and Rohit Sharma might not convert one of these days); if batting first and in a favourable position, push Dhoni down to 7; if the team loses 2-3 wickets cheaply, promote him up to absorb the blow and set a platform; the batting order in the second innings will depend on the RPO and this should be decided run-time; play 3 pacers with Shami opening the bowling and bowling out his quota early, and Bhuvi and Bumrah to operate at the death; go with only one tweaker, and to fight England on their own terms, play Jadeja as the spinner to lengthen the batting order with Bhuvi coming in at 9. Though this is no guarantee for victory or performance, it is based on how this tournament has played out and will mitigate some of the weaknesses that India has, thus increasing the odds of success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why has the IPL been such a big hit?

Since 2008, most of top stars in the cricketing world have been taking a collective break from international and domestic cricket to take part in the Indian Premier League (IPL) that happens mostly in a ~2 month window between March and May. In short, during this time period the IPL has been the cynosure of the cricketing world at large. Looking back, even though it may seem inevitable that viewership in cricket would crave a shorter format, it wasn’t really obvious at the time. In fact, it seems rather incredulous today that BCCI and India were quite indifferent to T20’s charms initially (more on this shortly). But what contributes to the enduring appeal of the IPL? What are the various factors that have made the league what it is today—the biggest commercial property outside international cricket (and quite possibly will surpass it soon)? The answers lie in two major factors—timing and scheduling. Though both terms may look like synonyms, the reader can be rest assured that they aren’t in this instance.

The first reason for the popularity of the IPL and T20 format, as it has been with many commercial products, has been the factor of timing. Around the turn of the millennium, the last bastion of healthy turnout for the first-class game—England—had started witnessing lower turnouts. Especially, the younger generation were preferring to adopt other sports in favour of cricket. The marketing manager of the ECB, Stuart Robertson, suggested looking a compressed format which was more in tune with current temporal demands. A year later, despite facing some opposition from the county chairmen, on the back of some last over slogging, the format found a midwife.

International cricket didn’t take the format seriously—the first T20 international featured mirthful scenes, also featuring mock red card to Glenn McGrath for impersonating the infamous underarm incident. In a couple of years, most nations played their first T20 game, drawing a mix of curiosity and bewilderment from their supporters. India was one of the last “big” nations to play its inaugural game; its domestic version, was a damp squib. “T20? Why not ten-ten or five-five or one-one?” thundered Niranjan Shah in the 2006 ICC board meeting, before boldly proclaiming that India would never play the format. The rival ICL, which had gained some momentum, was swiftly put out of business by BCCI.

At the same time, the ODI format had plateaued. Australia had sleepwalked to their third successive World Cup and was the standout team in a format with few surprises; ICC’s various attempts to enliven the game (supersub, superseries, experimenting with field restrictions and so on) had failed to hit the mark. India, quite disastrously, got knocked out in the group stage, making the tournament less palatable to the various stakeholders. The farcical 2007 World Cup final served as a fine (if it can be called that) example of everything that had gone wrong with the over-milked cash cow that was the ODI format.

It was in this setting that the T20 format captured the public imagination. Why, it seems really hard to believe that India were not too keen on fielding a team for the inaugural World T20 and had to be subtly arm-twisted into doing so by Ehsan Mani. India grudgingly sent a squad which reeked of the distaste that BCCI had for the new-fangled format—the team, captained by a greenhorn M S Dhoni, did not feature the batting superstars. More importantly, the short, crisp tournament was everything the ODI World Cup wasn’t—Australia were beatable (even by Zimbabwe), many matches were close, and an Indian victory ensured eyeballs and some instant love. By the time India had won the tense, cagey final, to paraphrase and misquote Victor Hugo, no BCCI could stop the idea of T20 whose time had come. The IPL had been launched in low-key fashion a few days before the victory, and BCCI now had the opportunity of being at the right place at the right time. 11 years after the first edition, it is safe to say that cricket hasn’t been the same ever since.

The other factor which has undoubtedly worked for the IPL is scheduling. One look at the future tours program shows that there is a pattern to international (and domestic) cricket. Essentially, cricket takes place during a 6-month window in various nations across the world. Cricket in England is a summer-time sport with the highlight of the cricket season headlined around the peak of summer; it is also the case in the other countries in the temperate zones which are not affected by a torrential rainy season (April-September in England and October-March in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand). On the other hand, even though the Asian countries are situated in the Northern hemisphere, playing cricket is not possible during the traditional English summer season due to the monsoon. Hence, in the subcontinent, cricket is a winter-time sport (October-March), which runs in tandem along with the cricketing schedules of the Southern hemisphere cricketing nations. The tropical West Indies grapple with a different problem despite having no monsoon and having great sunshine through the year—the hurricane season during the second half of the calendar year. This international cricket schedule percolates down to the domestic seasons as well. Looking at the pre-existing pattern, the scheduling window for the now-defunct Champions League T20 seems obvious.

This is exactly why the IPL during April and May is a scheduling masterstroke (not to mention its alignment with the school summer vacations); it is during the second half of the day in the hottest, driest part of the year and it does not conflict with the traditional cricketing seasons of most countries (barring England and WI). In fact, this tournament opened up a 2-month window in India, when domestic cricket traditionally wouldn’t take place hitherto as the longer formats were probably too harsh on the players in the oppressive summer.

Since the tournament does not clash with existing domestic structures of most cricketing nations, the presence of top stars has been all but ensured. The West Indies players are some of the most sought after T20 stars, and the conflicts between the players and the board have undoubtedly helped the IPL’s cause. This also explains the love-hate relationship between the English cricketing establishment and the IPL—the English players have either usually had to pick IPL over their domestic commitments or have been passed over entirely. No doubt the IPL has the first-mover advantage, but crucially, it has been aided by other favourable circumstances too—no domestic cricket runs in parallel with this tournament (as it has been the case in other countries such as Australia, England and others), and no overlap with other T20 leagues as well.

Therefore, the IPL’s success stems from these factors creating the perfect storm and it has hence become a league like no other in world cricket.

 

 

 

 

Who should make the India World Cup squad?

On April 15^th, the people who matter in the Indian cricketing setup will meet in Mumbai to select the squad for the upcoming World Cup. At a time when the IPL serves as a major distraction, one can be rest assured that the decisions of this group will be watched closely; after all, the hopes of the gazillions of fans rest in this special group of cricketers who have a shot at immortality.

For Virat Kohli, this tournament will represent a watershed moment in his limited overs captaincy career. After a string of impressive results around the world, the home series loss to Australia was a spanner in the works. The poor results at Royal Challengers Bangalore have set the tongues wagging as well. Kohli was an up and coming player in the 2011 edition which India won, playing an important role in steadying the Indian innings on more than one occasion (most memorably in the final). Now, he’s the all-important batting champion around which the entire team operates. His masterful batting has been absolutely crucial in papering over the middle order cracks that have plagued this Indian team for a while now. There are some other headaches as well, caused by the muddled thinking on part of the team management.

The makeup of the team that should be picked can be determined from recent trends. Since the 2015 World Cup, England has been the most expensive place for non-home bowlers, with the run-rate at ~6.13—the runaway leader for this period. While it is true that some of it may be due to a belligerent England team, who have been the standout batting team in this period, England is still the third most expensive place for home bowlers (after Pakistan, who have played only 3 matches in this period, and Sri Lanka, who have been especially poor); meaning, pitches in England have been the flattest in the world since the 2015 World Cup.

Which bowlers have done well in England? In the same period, leggie Adil Rashid has been the highest wicket taker; pacers such as Willey, Plunkett and Woakes have had decent returns as well. More importantly, finger spinners and part-timers have been on the receiving end, returning very expensive figures for their craft. Unless this English summer turns out to be unusually wet, there is no reason to believe situations will be very different from what has been the norm in the last 4 years. Hence, it is best to select the personnel accordingly.

With only the warm-up fixtures left before India’s first match against the South Africans on June 5^th at the Rose Bowl, it is time to select the squad and back the personnel to come up with the goods. But who should make the cut? Despite statements that only one spot could be for grabs, the situation is more complicated considering the issues of team balance, middle order batting, flexibility and bowling limitations. For better readability, the discussion has been demarcated into top order batsmen, middle order batsmen and wicket keepers, all-rounders and spin bowlers, and fast bowlers. Readers are advised to keep in mind the player’s primary skill, and that there will be overlaps or conflicts depending on one’s personal opinion (for example, whether you think Jadhav or Shankar is an all-rounder or not). The data has been organized into a table which contains information on the runs scored and wicket-taking in the last 10 ODI innings (where applicable) and on similar statistics from the ongoing IPL (with number of innings in brackets). Though IPL stats cannot be used straightaway to make a decision about ODI abilities, some insights can nevertheless be drawn. All stats provided are correct as on 7th April 2019.

Top order batsmen

Name	Last 10 inn. batting aggregate@SR	Last 10 inn. bowling aggregate (ER)	2019 IPL batting aggregate@SR (I)	2019 IPL bowling aggregate@ER (I)
R G Sharma	371@74	NA	118@123 (5)	NA
S Dhawan	365@91	NA	152@116(6)	NA
K L Rahul	147@78	NA	142@118(5)	NA
V Kohli	608@95	NA	203@126(6)	NA

The Indian top 3 is possibly the strongest top order in the ODI game right now, clearly presenting a double-edged sword. On their day, they can win matches on their own; but find a way through, the soft underbelly that is the Indian middle order has been found wanting. Barring Kohli, no one has been in sparkling touch recently but one of the openers should come good in England. Nonetheless, the top 3 select themselves. As far as the reserve opener is concerned, there aren’t any promising candidates apart from K L Rahul. He seems to enjoy the confidence of the team management despite having middling returns in the 14 matches that he has played in this format, and the team seems to have moved on from Rahane.

Middle order batsmen and wicketkeepers

Name	Last 10 inn. batting aggregate@SR	Last 10 inn. bowling aggregate (ER)	2019 IPL batting aggregate@SR (I)	2019 IPL bowling aggregate@ER (I)
A T Rayudu	247@77	NA	55@77(5)	NA
K Jadhav	306@100	5/286(5.95)	106@96(4)	NA
V Shankar	165@96+	2/188+ (5.61)	105@144(5)	0/26@8.66(2)
M S Dhoni	357@82	NA	156@125(4)	NA
R Pant	93@131+	NA	176@173(6)	NA
K D Karthik	242@86	NA	72@129(4)	NA

+the player has played in fewer than 10 ODIs

Given the recent trend of maximising scoring in the middle overs, the importance of Jadhav and Pandya (who’s listed as an all-rounder) to this lineup cannot be stated enough. As it can be seen from their overall record and recent showing, they are the two batsmen who have the game to boost the run rate in the middle overs. While Dhoni has scored enough runs, he hasn’t done it quickly enough—although, it is good enough if he can play as the anchor around whom the batting order pivots (much like Imran Khan did in 1992). Rayudu’s case is more complicated—he showed some promise until recently, when his performance dipped. But his bigger issue is that of strike rate; he’s not been able to rotate the strike in tune with the demands of the modern game and the team cannot have two batting slowpokes in Dhoni and Rayudu. So for this reason and for his below-average fielding, he has to sit the big tournament out. Dinesh Karthik—an able deputy to Dhoni and a busy batsman in his new avatar—should get the nod ahead of the Rishabh Pant, who is yet to show his mettle in the ODI format. Vijay Shankar’s case is the most interesting; he’s batted well so far in the limited chances that he’s got, has got the big shots, and is a splendid fielder to boot. But his bowling is in the Jadhav category and cannot be trusted on the biggest stage. But among the contenders, he’s probably the one alongside Jadhav who can fill in the sixth bowling option.

All-rounders and spinners

Name	Last 10 inn. batting aggregate@SR	Last 10 inn. bowling aggregate (ER)	2019 IPL batting aggregate@SR (I)	2019 IPL bowling aggregate@ER (I)
H Pandya	147@100	7/381(5.47)	102@179(5)	4/144@9.6(5)
R A Jadeja	147@70	10/462(4.67)	15@75(3)	4/95@5.93(5)
Y S Chahal	NA	21/501(5.50)	NA	9/165@6.87(6)
K Yadav	NA	18/493(5.54)	NA	3/155@8.61(5)

As articulated earlier, Jadeja isn’t an ODI all-rounder considering his inability to clear the field; besides, his ODI bowling has declined and his electric fielding ability cannot hide his other deficiencies. Hence, Jadeja can only be considered as a spinner who is a handy batsman at 8. On his day, he can pull off a run-out and bowl a few tidy overs, but his downside on flat pitches outweighs any potential upside. Pandya, Chahal and Kuldeep Yadav should walk into the side.

Fast bowlers

Name	Last 10 inn. batting aggregate@SR	Last 10 inn. bowling aggregate (ER)	2019 IPL batting aggregate@SR (I)	2019 IPL bowling aggregate@ER (I)
M Shami	NA	17/445(5.01)	NA	5/187@9.35(5)
J J Bumrah	NA	16/383(4.19)	NA	5/126@6.75(5)
B Kumar	163@74	19/425(5.23)	NA	3/178@9.36(5)
U Yadav	NA	14/492(5.96)	NA	2/126@8.49(4)
K Ahmed	NA	11/338+ (5.36)	NA*	NA*

*the player hasn’t played in 2019 IPL

+the player has played in fewer than 10 ODIs

In his young career, Bumrah is already at a level higher than India’s greatest ever ODI fast bowlers. Without a doubt, he is the pace spearhead. Mohammed Shami, bowling with renewed pace and hostility, has solved the problem of opening bowling to some extent, but as his IPL figures show, he is expensive at the death. Bhuvaneshwar Kumar has regressed as a wicket taking and containing bowler as well, but has done enough to slot in as the third seamer (not to mention, his fantastic batting ability at number 8). There is no clear candidate for the fourth seamer, but stats in England since the 2015 World Cup show that wrist spin and pace bowling have done better than finger spin. Umesh Yadav has been off-colour in the IPL, and Khaleel Ahmed—who has done decently for India in his few matches—hasn’t played for the Sunrisers. All things considered, I’d pick Khaleel over Jadeja for variety.

The weaknesses of this team? One, the team is a bit short of experience beyond the first 11. In 2011, Piyush Chawla, the least experienced member was 22 matches young; Virat Kohli, the other greenhorn had played 45 matches, with every other squad member having played many more matches. Two, the team is still reliant on its top order; while batting first, if there is a collapse, Dhoni has to be the glue at 4. In other fair weather conditions, the bigger hitters have to bat ahead of him to maximize India’s scoring opportunities in the middle overs. Three, the bowling isn’t an effective deterrent yet; Bumrah is obviously world-class, but the others aren’t foolproof and Kuldeep Yadav’s novelty will probably wear out in a long tournament. Five quality overs from Bumrah at the death are a given but how the team sends down five more overs without much damage will be the key to defending tricky totals.

First XI: Rohit, Dhawan, Kohli, Dhoni, Karthik, Jadhav, Pandya, Kuldeep, Chahal, Shami, Bumrah

4 substitutes: K L Rahul, Bhuvaneshwar Kumar, Vijay Shankar, Khaleel Ahmed

Prediction: Barring the champion West Indies and Australia teams, the World Cup has been won by the “form” teams who raised their performances at the right time. With an extended round-robin phase, and with no current outstanding side (England has bigger bowling weaknesses compared to India), the initial league matches will only serve as an appetizer, with the tournament coming alive in the last 3 matches. India has the ammunition to go all the way, but I suspect they will lose in the finals. Anything less than winning all but 2 matches and making the semifinals will be a massive underperformance.

 

Team balance crucial ahead of World Cup challenge

In what was possibly the most satisfying win on the ODI leg, the Indian cricket team overcame a disastrous start, dug deep to post a competitive total, and later regularly chipped away wickets to bundle out the Kiwis for a fine victory in the final match of the series. A 4-1 series win against a competent New Zealand team (which had the best home Win-Loss record recently) is thoroughly deserved and indeed impressive; what is more, the series was done and dusted in quick time, and with little or no help from India’s champions Jasprit Bumrah and Virat Kohli (the latter for the last 2 matches). What bailed India out of this pickle was India’s depth (more on this shortly).

It was especially pleasing to see the team management take the challenge head on by choosing to bat first on a challenging pitch. As Rohit Sharma stated afterwards, if the series were on the line, they would have chased if they had won the toss. But given that this was a dead rubber, it gave the team a good chance to experiment with the team’s composition and balance. Of course, it was winning the series in good time that gave India the luxury to experiment; taking an unassailable lead against or regularly whitewashing top teams began with Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s reign as ODI skipper.

Before M S Dhoni’s time, India rarely blanked strong opposition (one would have to go back to the ‘80s to see earlier instances of consistent superiority but they were under multiple captains) in order to give the team the wiggle room to test several use cases. Virat Kohli’s team has taken the same template and managed to apply it both at home and abroad. The key factor that helped the Indian team to overcome the Kiwis yesterday was the team composition, depth and balance. And the team balance will be a crucial factor going into and in the World Cup.

India elected to play Vijay Shankar, an all-rounder, in the place of Kuldeep Yadav, therefore lengthening the batting lineup. As a result, the free-swinging Hardik Pandya came in at number 8. This is not to say that Pandya may not have delivered the same blows from number 7, but fans can easily envisage an alternate reality in which the dismissal of Rayudu in the 44^th over would have brought in Bhuvaneshwar Kumar, with 3 pure bowlers to follow. In all probability, the team would have meandered towards a 220 all out. Instead, Rayudu and Jadhav could play with the freedom of knowing that they could take risks given that they had Pandya to follow.

In the batting order, alongside the top 3, the team management seems intent on Dhoni’s presence. Though Dhoni is no longer the batsman who looks good in a #10yearchallenge, he’s still the team’s best batsman in a crisis (think Kingston, the Oval, Chennai, Chennai (again), Dharamshala etc.), even though he didn’t fire on this occasion. This version of Dhoni motors along at ~80 SR and needs a lot of deliveries to come up to speed, which means that his partners need to pick up the slack in these middle-overs-run-milking times. Jadhav and Pandya are some of the fastest scoring batsmen since the 2015 World Cup and their place seems to be justified.

Rayudu, after weathering the initial storm, played the Dhoni role to perfection, but the issue is that he too isn’t too different strike rate wise. Since the 2015 World Cup, Dhoni and Rayudu have been striking it in the low 80s and this approach will surely cost the team on flat pitches if the top order cannot carry on. Besides, India have been behind the curve in the middle orders. No doubt Dhoni gives the team insurance, but it is prudent to push him down the order in the first innings, unless there is a collapse.

What has been papering over the middle overs meandering is the fantastic bowling, although we’re yet to see if India can defend a low-ish score as Pakistan would regularly do so in the 1990s. Bumrah has been a revelation; Shami has staked a strong claim to the opening bowling slot; Bhuvi is great at the death and the two wrist spinners are taking wickets for fun. The problem? Only one of the latter 2 fast men can play and this means that the expensive Hardik Pandya comes in. Even after 44 ODI innings, he bowls ~7 overs per match, conceding 5.5 runs per over and taking wickets at ~40—meaning he’s not a reliable bowler. Additionally, among the top 6, only Jadhav bowls, but even his range is limited; discounting his ODI experience, his List A record shows an experience of—hold your breath— only 192 deliveries (translation: he’s only a couple of matches away from being cruelly figured out and finished as an ODI bowler on the big stage by someone like a Warner); and he’s injury prone to boot. Other players haven’t played enough to cover for these 2 and one hopes that it isn’t a case of too little too late. Dropping a spinner to play a Krunal Pandya or Shankar would have given some indication on contingencies apart from these 2, as a 3 spinner formula won’t make it beyond Asian shores.

If you think that I’m unnecessarily sounding alarmist after a 4-1 victory, please hear me out. The 6-1-4 team configuration is really hard on India as only one bowler can afford to have an off day, which is a mighty ask given that England has some of the flattest pitches since the 2015 World Cup (though the effect of an early summer start on this top order remains to be seen). Remember, this team, despite multiple warnings about the inefficacies of finger spin, steamrolled into the final of the 2017 Champions trophy, and set a date against Pakistan. Cue in the trite “Mauka mauka” sequence—except, the Pakistan team threw caution to the wind and assaulted the Indian finger spinners, practically ending their ODI careers (barring sporadic appearances). Who is to say that this shouldn’t repeat in an all-important knockout match?

Therefore, it would be well worth taking a long, hard look at the team balance, with each configuration bringing in its own tradeoffs, in the remaining few matches. Make no mistake, with 9 group matches and 2 possible knockout matches, this will be a long World cup, and the Indian team has to maintain the balance if it has to be in business in the business end of the quadrennial tournament.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

India’s lower order striking deficiencies

Lower order muscle: The Pandya brothers hold the key to bolstering the Indian lower middle order. Image source:1.

It was the 14^th of July in 2018. The ground was Lord’s.

England faced India in the second match of the ODI leg of the Indian tour to Ireland and England. A mouthwatering clash at the home of cricket between two quality teams. ICC ODI rank 1 vs ICC ODI rank 2. As marquee bilateral fixtures go, it couldn’t get bigger than this.

The England team were beaten comprehensively in the first ODI, first by the wrist spin of Kuldeep Yadav, and then by the Indian top-order blitz. England would respond impressively in the second ODI in the only way they have played ODI cricket recently—by outhitting the opposition. The English players were particularly severe on their nemesis Kuldeep Yadav, smashing him around for 68 runs in his allotted 10 overs. In spite of losing their late middle order lieutenant Jos Buttler, with the help of unheralded all-rounder David Willey at number 8, they were able to zoom to 322 runs in their 50 overs. While Joe Root was the glue that held the batting order together and overcome India’s middle overs boa constrictor squeeze, it was this late burst that gave the advantage to England. With Kohli dismissed in the 27^th over with the score on 140, the wind had been knocked out of the Indian chase and it would limp to 236 all out.

There would be no surprise if these two excellent teams meet in a fixture of massive importance exactly one year, to the day, from this match—the 2019 World Cup final, also at Lord’s. Indeed, these two have been the two outstanding ODI teams since the 2015 World Cup. India have been a consistent ODI team for almost a decade, but it is England’s transformation from ODI duds to trailblazers is indeed the more remarkable story. The two excellent teams have taken two very different paths to the summit of ODI cricket.

For almost two decades now, India has traditionally been the land of good ODI batsmen—Azharrudin, Tendulkar, Ganguly, and Dravid to name a few. The trend continues today with Kohli, Rohit, Dhawan and Dhoni, and the team has some serious bowling chops as well. However, it isn’t fair to say that India has the best ODI batting lineup in the world; that accolade belongs to England, who bat in an explosive manner all through to number 8. As it was the case with India at one point of time, England’s ODI batting strength and depth are the envy of the cricketing world.

In the last few years, the Indian batting order has developed a soft underbelly beneath that impressive top order. While the top 3 are class-leading, the lower middle order is very much behind the curve—and certainly behind England, the cutting edge—in this respect. If the Indian team has ambitions of making the final on 14^th July, it needs to find the balm to soothe this massive headache.

The extent of this problem can be gleaned from statistics. Over the last two years, of the lower middle order batsmen (batting positions 5-7) who have scored at least 300 runs, only two Indian batsmen feature in the list of the top 25 batsmen ordered by strike rate. Even if one were to discount the ones who have inflated figures due to playing the associate teams, this is an alarming fact. For the record, the two aforementioned Indian players are Kedar Jadhav and Hardik Pandya.

Both these players have been good for India in terms of doing the heavy lifting in the end overs, but they have problems of their own. Hardik Pandya’s future is temporarily uncertain, having sipped a very expensive cup of coffee; the diminutive Jadhav has been impressive, but he’s quite injury prone. While Dinesh Karthik and Ambati Rayudu have been drafted into the side and certainly have the capability to be busy, they haven’t traditionally played that role for their state sides. Complicating the matter is that of the veteran champion batsman, M S Dhoni. He’s no more the force that he was, which means that the added pressure of providing impetus falls on the others, as it happened in Australia. Simply put, the Indian team cannot afford to lose either Hardik Pandya or Kedar Jadhav, either to insult or injury.

The Indian team management has often fielded Ravindra Jadeja in the number 7 slot (before Vijay Shankar was given his chance) during Hardik Pandya’s absence. While Ravindra Jadeja is an electrifying fielder, the same adjective cannot be used to describe his limited overs batting. His overall strike rate is ~85 and at number 7, it is worse (82.43)—hardly the kind of number that the opposition would lose sleep over. Make no mistake, he would be a world-class number 8, but with the Indian middle order presently in a state of funk, number 7 would be a step too far for a player of his limited batting abilities.

This is why the team management’s decision to not select Krunal Pandya has been puzzling to say the least. While Vijay Shankar is indeed a legitimate option, Krunal has shown better lower order chops in the IPL and domestic cricket, and has bowled some stifling finger to go on top of his explosive batting. His full range abilities were on display against the England Lions yesterday—six economical overs followed by a late overs charge which set up the India A victory. With him in the team, the team can field three pacers and one wrist spinner, or if the management is feeling too adventurous, it can match England for firepower by including the Pandya brothers and extending the batting order until 8. With Bhuvaneshwar Kumar at 9, one would assume that this is a lower middle order which can go toe to toe with the best in the business.

With just the 9 matches left before the World Cup (the Zimbabwe tour to India is uncertain due to the scheduling conflicts with the IPL), India needs to check all the boxes in order to maximize its chances.

Disclaimer: The image used is not the property of this blog. It has been used for representational purposes only. The copyright, if any, rests with the respective owners.

 

 

 

Kohli’s team learns to converse in the language of test cricket

Success, at last: Team India ended a long wait for its first series win in Australia. Image source: 1.

Team India has finally won a test series in Australia.

Over the last 40 years, Australia has lost at home only to good cricketing teams—the recent South African side, a competent England team (2010-11 Ashes) and the West Indies team (no additional description necessary). The chroniclers of cricketing history can add this Indian team to this impressive list. Let the magnitude of this achievement sink in.

Multiple generations of Indian cricketers and their fans—who had been accustomed to seeing defeat after demoralizing defeat in Australia—would be rightly enthralled after this series win. The manner in which the Indian team achieved this victory has been impressive too. The first two tests were relatively close, but it was all one-way traffic after that; the leads that Australia conceded after the first innings in the Melbourne and Sydney tests have been some of the biggest in their cricketing history. Virat Kohli’s team and the support staff definitely deserve the bouquets for putting up a great performance in this hard-fought series and wearing down a weakened Australian team to clinch the series and wrest back the Border-Gavaskar trophy.

How did Virat Kohli’s team manage to surmount this hurdle? Indian teams have traditionally been good at home and not so great overseas, so how has this Indian team been different from its predecessors with respect to touring abroad? Is there something that this team has done right? Why have the away results turned out the way they have for this team, and not so for Indian teams before this one?

In order to understand the discrepancies among the results achieved under different long-term test captains that the Indian team has had, it is important to understand the underlying mechanics of test cricket.

Over the history of test cricket, batsmen and bowlers have averaged ~30.27 and ~31.84 runs per dismissal (the difference between the two is due to extras and run outs). Specifically, over the last five years, the corresponding statistics are ~30.81 and ~32.03—meaning, even after all these years, the variation is quite small and overall statistics can be used as an excellent stand-in for the state of test cricket today.

Result	Batting average	Bowling average
Win	37.23	21.94
Loss	20.91	39.26
Draw	39.81	44.35

If one were to examine the variation of batting and bowling averages with respect to results, clear trends emerge. Looking at the numbers alone, it can be seen that a good batting performance can feature in both a win and a draw. Also, a good bowling performance is absolutely mandatory to win a test match. Simply put, good batting is absolutely essential if a team has to not lose a test match, but for a victory, it needs the support from the bowling department. With this in mind, let us proceed to look at the away records (versus top 8 teams only) of four recent Indian captains—Ganguly, Dravid, Dhoni and Kohli (with due apologies to Anil Kumble).

In the case of team records, two sets of statistics will be examined: The Win-Loss (W/L) ratio and the Win percentage (Win%, which represents the percentage of matches won by a test team). It is prudent to use both Win% and W/L to look at team performances as they have their own advantages. A high Win% suggests that the team won most of the tests that it played in, whereas a high W/L indicates that the team won a lot more tests for every loss incurred. In the shorter formats, due to the rarity of tied matches & no results, both can be used almost interchangeably, but since draws are a regular feature in test cricket, both W/L and Win% are needed.

Away, top 8	Matches	Won	Lost	Draw	W/L	Win%	Bat avg.	Bow avg.
Ganguly	21	5	9	7	0.56	23.81	34.74	40.34
Dravid	15	4	4	7	1.00	26.67	38.23	36.97
Dhoni	29	5	15	9	0.33	17.24	30.69	41.99
Kohli	24	11	9	4	1.22	45.83	33.41	28.35

At a macro level, the Win% of the three captains before Kohli don’t look too far apart but the W/L ratio tells a different story. Against top opposition, the captains before Kohli managed to win only about 1 in 4 matches (about a match every tour). For Kohli’s team, that number is almost close to 1 in 2 matches. From the correlation seen between bowling well and winning matches, it is easy to see why. Kohli’s team has bowled extremely well overseas—the Indian bowling in overseas test matches has never seen such a year in its history. The other 3 teams had bowling averages close to loss or draw territory. With such ineffective bowling attacks, it is therefore to no one’s surprise that Indian teams led by previous captains such as Ganguly, Dravid and Dhoni were unable to win more than a single test in an overseas series. Usually, test series abroad followed the same script—with the batting holding fort to avoid defeat in all but one test and a freakish bowling performance, often in adverse conditions, delivering a famous win—think Adelaide 2003, Johannesburg 2006, Nottingham 2007 and Lords 2014.

The batting average of those teams also tell a similar story; Dravid’s and Ganguly’s teams had better than average batting (compared to the rest of the world) and hence could draw matches regularly. Kohli’s team, though it can take 20 wickets regularly, hasn’t had the best of times batting-wise and therefore has lost matches that it could have won or drawn. Of  course, it is also worth remembering that 2018 was one of the worst years in over half a century for batting, and these numbers have to be seen in that context. People might point to the absence of Smith and Warner in this series, but the Indian batting did perform admirably against a full-strength Australian bowling. Unlike the 2003-04 series (where McGrath and Warne didn’t feature), Australia had the bowling attack to force victories in this series.

Dhoni’s team? Even though the overall batting average is quite low, before the 2011 World Cup, the W/L, Win%, Bat avg. and bowling avg. numbers read 1.5, 37.5%, 39.56 and 40.88 respectively—thus showing that even at the peak of the Dhoni-led team, it never had the bowling personnel to consistently win test matches overseas; it was more or less the continuation of the same formula adopted by Ganguly’s and Dravid’s teams.

In summary, Kohli’s team has learned to converse in the language of test matches victories—by making the ball talk. India’s bowling has learned to be hostile, to exercise control, and the art of maintaining pressure and hunting in packs. This Indian team is a couple of elite batsmen light from joining the ranks of great teams from yesteryear; the bowling attack is quite close to being the best test bowling attack in all conditions though. Now imagine a bowling attack do this for more than 10 years (with world-class batting to boot), and you can imagine what West Indies and Australia were like.

Disclaimer: The image used in this article is not property of this blog. It has been used for representational purposes only. The copyright, if any, belongs to the respective owners.

 

 

 

The Evolution of Opening Batsmen – Kris Srikkanth’s place in ODI cricket history

We wrote an analytical piece for the good folks at Nation of Sport about understanding Krishnamachari Srikkanth’s place in the annals of ODI cricket. The article is behind a paywall and hence we can’t reproduce it on our blog like we normally do so. Here is a short summary:

Ardent cricket fans have come to believe that opening batting in the ODIs changed after the 1992 World Cup, when Mark Greatbatch showed everyone the way by blasting his way through the fielding restrictions. While there is some truth to this statement, this isn’t the entire picture. These stories ignore the pioneering role of Srikkanth, who performed something similar many years ago more consistently (at a time when field restrictions were not uniformly applied, mind you) and for a much longer period, thus standing out amongst all his peers. We analyse his record in the context of his time and pay tribute to this trailblazer who was ahead of his time.

You can read the whole piece at: https://www.nationofsport.com/stories/kris-srikkanth?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email

You need a subscription to access the entire story and we urge you to subscribe to this wonderful website to check out many other interesting stories as well.