An analytical look at an all-time Indian XI at the World Cups

In a few days, India will begin their World Cup campaign against South Africa. On paper, India are one of the stronger sides coming into the big tournament and will look to add a third world title to their kitty. Barring a major debacle, India should finish in the top 4 and make it to the semifinals; and after that, it is a matter of two good knockout matches for any team looking to lift the title and make cricketing history.

Throughout India’s ODI world cup history, several illustrious players have served the Indian team well, bringing honour and distinction in the process. But who are the Indian players who have lit the world stage = at cricket’s biggest tournament? Are they the usual suspects such as Tendulkar, Kapil Dev, Dhoni, Virat Kohli (who are sure-shot walk-ins for an all-time India ODI XI), or are there other unexpected players who have shone? In order to investigate this, we will undertake an analytical exercise to identify the players who have performed at a high level in the World Cup.

First up, some ground rules. Only world cup performances will be considered (with an 8 match and 2 tournament cutoff). This criterion ensures that players don’t just make it on the basis of a few good weeks, but rather that their good performances were spread out over multiple tournaments, thus rewarding long-term consistency.

What might be a good metric to measure ODI performance? Over the years, we have preferred to use (as have others) Batting and Bowling Index ratios (BaI ratio and BoI ratio respectively) to get a sense of the “level” at which a player operated in the period under consideration. Analysts have traditionally multiplied a player’s average and strike rate (economy rate for bowling) and divided it by a baseline to get a ratio that represents how valuable that player was. While this is a good start, it has some limitations. Hence, we have tweaked this to take into consideration run-inflation over the years and position in the batting/bowling order as different players have faced different conditions and circumstances throughout ODI history. So, the baseline of a player is derived based on weighting the number of matches played in a particular World cup edition and at a particular position—the rationale being, it is fairer to compare a player with his counterparts rather than everyone in the batting/bowling order. With this tweak in place, a player’s performances are largely compared to those of a hypothetical, composite player who faced similar opportunities.

Now that we have defined the criteria, let us have a look at how the players have performed with respect to their baselines.

At the top of the order, the peerless Sachin Tendulkar leads the pack having performed at a level that was ~2 times that of the hypothetical average player who got the same batting opportunities during his era. His partner-in-crime, Sourav Ganguly isn’t far off with a BaI ratio of 1.94. Considering that these players played in multiple world cups, this is an exceptional record. The Nawab of Najafgarh has performed at a high level as well, with Sidhu rounding up the top 4. The current openers Rohit Sharma and Shikhar Dhawan (who didn’t make the cut due to the 2 tournament cutoff) could break into this list with a decent showing in the upcoming world cup.

The middle order springs a few surprises. Virat Kohli may have game-leading ODI statistics at the moment, but he is yet to produce his best at the World Cup. His level is only at 1.16 times the average player—of course, the presence of other illustrious peers in the top order hasn’t helped his cause. Rahul Dravid is easily India’s most valuable batsman from the BaI ratio perspective due to his stellar showing at multiple world cups (and he kept wicket in many games as well). Middle-order stars from more than 20 years ago—Azhar and Jadeja—have also performed respectably for India. M S Dhoni, in his World cup matches, hasn’t hit the heights of his otherwise superlative career but still has played at a very good level; but to be honest, there was no other wicketkeeping contender apart from Dravid. Suresh Raina shows the opposite characteristic of Kohli—he may not have extraordinary stats in ODIs but his showing in the World cup has indeed been very good with respect to his peers.

Now come the multi-dimensional players with two strings to their bow—the all-rounders. If single-skill cricketers could only contribute in one way, an all-rounder’s contribution is effectively the sum of batting and bowling contributions, making them extremely valuable to the team.

Batting-wise, Kapil Dev has been class-leading but his bowling has been rather ordinary at the World Cups. On the back of his impressive showing at the victorious 2011 World Cup campaign, Yuvraj Singh has extremely high numbers both in the bowling and batting departments, and he easily makes the cut along with Kapil. The heroes of the 1983 World Cup, Mohinder Amarnath and Madan Lal have slightly contrasting stories to tell with respect to statistics. According to the methodology, Madan Lal has the highest sum and there is no doubting his bowling contributions; but truth be told, this is an anomaly resulting largely because of his batting numbers racked up from low batting positions. In Amarnath’s case, even though his contributions were very valuable in the latter stages of the 1983 campaign, in the overall World Cup picture, they weren’t path-breaking.

Among the pace battery of the 2003 World Cup team, left arm quicks Ashish Nehra and Zaheer Khan edge the senior partner and mentor Srinath in the BoI ratio stakes. Dovetailing with Kapil Dev, this should be a good pace attack on the whole. The man who was blessed with banana swing, Manoj Prabhakar, has also performed at an acceptable level for India. But apart from these 4 (and Kapil), it is slim pickings (Shami and Umesh Yadav did well in 2015 but didn’t qualify due to the criteria). But this might change very soon—one suspects that a couple of fast bowlers from this tournament will break into this list soon.

Rounding up the team are spinners from south India. Though they weren’t necessarily first-choice throughout their careers, Kumble and Ashwin are the top spin bowlers for India according to BoI ratio. Beyond these 2, there is daylight and then Venkatapathy Raju. What about long-serving Harbhajan Singh? Surprisingly, he has very ordinary numbers in the World Cup.

Now that the analysis has revealed the “value” of each player, who makes the final squad? 10 out of 11 places are automatic picks; the odd one out is the solitary middle order slot. Suresh Raina made his runs over 9 innings; now compare this to Sehwag’s (22) and Azhar’s (25) match tallies. Though all 3 satisfy the selection criteria, Suresh Raina has played far fewer matches for his returns and hence he has to unfortunately sit this one out. So do we ask Sehwag to bat at 3? Or do we go with Azhar’s experience at 4? We prefer the latter. Among all the amazing options, we pick Dhoni to captain this fantasy XI.

All-time India World Cup XI: Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid, Mohammad Azharuddin, Yuvraj Singh, M S Dhoni (c & wk), Kapil Dev, Ravichandran Ashwin, Anil Kumble, Zaheer Khan, Ashish Nehra

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 importance of being Pujara

Tunnel vision: Pujara’s focus and judgement helped India to win the test at Adelaide. Image source: 1.

Let us imagine that as a child you were given a marshmallow or a cookie (or a treat that you loved). But there’s a catch; the giver told you that you would receive one more in case you didn’t succumb to your immediate desire of eating it for 15 minutes. Would you give in and take a quick nibble? Or would you control your urges for a bigger, later reward?

This is the premise of the famous Stanford Marshmallow experiment, a series of experiments that studied delayed gratification—when the subject resists the temptation of a short-term reward for a larger, long-term reward. At the time, a child with a tendency to wait for the later, better reward was found to have better life outcomes (such as exam scores, education, body mass and others) on average. The perceived correlation was simple—that the ability to resist immediate temptation in order to reach your larger goal was measured by this experiment. Subsequent research has cast doubt on this finding, but the researchers may very well have used this premise to study test cricket’s grammar and Pujara’s interpretation of it.

In a test match of fine margins, it was Cheteshwar Pujara’s knocks in both the innings that proved to be the difference. Though the Australians steadily chipped away towards the target in the 4^th innings, it was his crucial runs that provided the much-needed cushion that India needed to account for the overheads (tailender occupation, no balls and dropped catches) en route to the finish line.

Much of his run accumulation was done in the only way he knew, by taking his time to eat the marshmallow. He left alone 53 deliveries, 23 in excess of all his specialist colleagues when he was holding up one end and shepherding India to an acceptable first innings total from a disastrous position of 41/4. While his fellow batters were busy succumbing to temptation, Pujara waited for the storm to pass, put away the bad ball and then feasted on a tired attack. His first innings knock also followed his strike rate template to a T—eschewing risk at the start (~28 until he reached 30), motoring along in the middle (~50 for the next 30 runs) and then zooming at end (~85 for his last 63 runs). Over two innings, his flirty, twinkly-toed, courtship dance interspersed with a playing-hard-to-get routine, set to Nathan Lyon’s bowling defined the entire match. If not for Pujara’s heroics, Lyon, with his eight wickets and 62 unbeaten runs, would have been the man of the match. It is hard to believe that after more than 5000 test runs, Pujara may have finally cemented his place in the Indian team.

Why, his place wasn’t secure not too long ago. The debate of his strike rate raged on unnecessarily in a format where test matches don’t go the distance. He was rightfully dropped after a poor string of scores in the first SENA (South Africa, England, New Zealand and Australia) abroad tour iteration in 2013 & 2014, when he couldn’t kick on after getting to double digits, but he unnecessarily got a raw deal the second time around. The team management, for all its wisdom, fluttered its eyelashes at the proverbial “Sharmaji ka beta”, preferring “intent” and “aggression” to test match competence.

Sure, it isn’t criminal to crave for a player who can come in at 500/4 and smash the bowling around for 15 overs to take the game away from the opposition, but it also helps reaching that desired score in the first place. Yes, there is more than one way to skin the cat (sorry PETA) that is test cricket, but it wasn’t fair that he was almost always the first in line to be dropped at the expense of more “talented” colleagues such as Rohit Sharma and KL (some would say KLPD) Rahul; at the same time, they have done little of note to grab their chances whenever they were shoehorned into the eleven at his expense. Pujara has responded to these reverses admirably, often scoring runs in adverse situations—at Colombo, Jo’burg, Nottingham and Southampton, to name a few.

In today’s day and age, a Pujara and his style of play is an anachronism: a heartfelt, memorable, handwritten letter—replete with structure and meaningful pauses—in the age of the snarky tweet, the trying-too-hard-to-be-funny gif and the several me-too listicles that demand your ephemeral attention before it flits around to the next one in line which doesn’t quite satiate. He’s also polite to a fault; instead of ripped muscles, his body contours sport rounded edges; he needs to be taught to sledge; and believe it or not, chocolate milkshake is his choice of celebratory beverage. It also doesn’t help that he only plays test matches, that too the old-fashioned way, thus having fewer moments to remind everyone of his utility (trivia: his List-A average is 54.20).

Pujara should probably take solace from the fact that his illustrious predecessor, the peerless Rahul Dravid, elevated himself to an all-weather batsman only by 2002. Yes, he had a great debut and some promising innings in South Africa and New Zealand, but he struggled in Australia and had a few ordinary series around the turn of the millennium. After a productive England tour, on the very same ground 15 years ago, Dravid had his finest hour as a batsman. From mid-2002, Dravid was India’s most prolific test run scorer.

Along with reaching various batting landmarks in the same number of innings as Dravid, Pujara has had his moment in the sun in Adelaide as well. This game has been the right one to show Pujara’s value to the team and his colleagues would do well to imbibe his methods of avoiding short-term temptation and then scoring big runs once the Kookaburra ball loses its zip. This bears even more significance given that Ashwin’s batting has been on the wane recently and that India often fields three number 11s after him. It is high time that the team management lays off Pujara and accepts him for the player he is, without unnecessarily dangling a selectorial sword over his head.

With Sri Lanka and West Indies on the decline and India playing Pakistan only in world events, unfortunately, the calling card for the great Indian batsman is a good record in the SENA countries. Pujara’s feats at this stage are dwarfed by Dravid’s deeds, but imitation is the best form of paying homage to an all-time legend. Indian fans will surely hope that this showing augurs well for his batting all over the world and that he has his own prolific run.

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

 

 

 

No county for IPL men is a problem for team India’s test match preparation

By early 2006, Zaheer Khan had gone a full circle from being India’s darling at the ICC knockout trophy, to a player who had middling returns and injury problems (and spent quite a bit of time on the sidelines of the Indian team). In a bid to stage a return to the Indian team, he joined Worcestershire in the English summer of 2006. In Worcestershire, Zaheer Khan figured that he had to stay fit throughout the entire season, seam the ball more, and make some adjustments with his bowling action. Along with Graham Dilley, the Worcestershire bowling consultant, he shortened his run-up and improved the balance in his delivery stride.

He had a highly productive county stint, picking up 78 wickets in 16 games at ~29 runs per dismissal, en-route to topping the Division Two wickets list and back to national reckoning.

Upon his return to English shores in 2007 as an Indian player, he had fashioned the first Indian series win in England since 1986. He was also instrumental in India’s ascent to the summit of the test rankings. Coincidentally, his bowling statistics in both the Test and ODI format took an upturn post his county stint, and he also racked up some great fast bowling numbers as well.

Nearly two months after winning the 2011 World cup with the Indian team, he labelled his county stint as the turning point of his career in an interview to GQ India

“Yeah, in many ways it was [the turning point of my career]. It was really important for me to play at the highest level, and to get back in to the Indian side. I always knew I had the potential to perform but somehow I was not able to deliver. The stint at Worcestershire helped me understand the game, why I am playing and other things in terms of preparations for matches and bowling on different kind of wickets. It was a great learning curve.”

In the very same interview, he recommended a county season to young Indian bowlers.

It wasn’t just Zaheer Khan who had a marked improvement after a spell in county cricket. Kapil Dev played for Northamptonshire and Worcestershire in the early 1980s. Kapil Dev’s best phase as a fast bowler for India overlapped with his period in county cricket. Tendulkar and Dravid were huge hits at Yorkshire and Kent respectively; several other Indian players too benefited from the exposure the county circuit offered.

For long, the English county cricket circuit remained the ultimate finishing school for cricketers where cricketers rubbed shoulders with top overseas professionals. Recently, Wasim Akram and Michael Holding paid homage to county cricket’s role during their formative years; it is also instructive to note that they bemoaned the absence of top professionals due to the crowded cricketing calendar but still reckoned it to be the best place to learn fast bowling.

The English cricket season runs from March to September—a totally complementary time to the Indian domestic season. However, post 2007, the IPL has occupied the Indian cricketing calendar in April and May, making Indian professionals less attractive to English county sides. There is also the point of disparity in potential earnings. Why would anybody in their right mind choose toiling away in a faraway country, doing your own chores, and earning peanuts (relatively) when one could earn much more from a two month long jamboree bowling four overs at a time (for the bowlers) for 14 matches in front of millions of adoring fans? It would be hard to see someone like Zaheer Khan making this choice today.

In fact, the IPL question loomed on the horizon recently. Virat Kohli, having failed miserably in the 2014 tour to England, expressed his desire to play a few county games in order to acclimatize before the next English tour. But the extent of his participation remains doubtful for the reasons mentioned above.

Test cricket is a different beast compared to the other two limited formats. The ODI and T20 can be won by run containment; whereas, a team needs to learn to take 20 wickets in order to win a test match. Therefore, coaxing the batsman to make a mistake when there is no necessity to score runs, or manufacture a wicket, is quite different proposition compared to the challenges of the limited formats. Consequently, the struggle for survival while batting is a different challenge compared to going hell for leather in the shorter formats.

Assuming the ICC rankings to be a barometer for excellence, the fact that very few players are present in the top 10 of all the 3 rankings (Virat Kohli, Joe Root, Kane Williamson, de Kock, and no bowlers) shows that only a few are able to master the challenge doing well in three formats seamlessly. For example, Ashwin was in the limelight for his shorter format success initially, but there have been murmus about his shorter format prowess being on the wane.

Since success in test cricket is dependent on developing a good bowling unit, the Indian think-tank should do all it takes to prepare one for greater challenges abroad. The BCCI should identify premier test match specialists, and send them to county cricket before the next round of overseas fixtures. The Indian team has done well recently at home, but the legacy that it will leave for the future generations to come will be dependent on their overseas results.

With Pujara and Ishant Sharma not being chosen by the IPL franchisees, they wouldn’t have any problems with the IPL or county cricket choice. However, players like Mohammed Shami, Bhuvaneshwar Kumar, Ashwin and Umesh Yadav will feature in the IPL. The Indian team think-tank would do well to send these players to England for a season or two in order to sharpen their weapons; a reciprocal agreement with other countries wouldn’t hurt either. It should also consider compensating them financially for a loss of IPL earnings; the BCCI certainly can afford to do so, and with the world’s top cricketers playing in the IPL, Indians would be the overseas professionals of choice in various counties. In short, the BCCI should institute a county scholarship program to build on the recent successes, and look to construct an all-weather test team which can consistently matches home and abroad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The man who would be king

Ace of the chase: Not another ODI series goes by without an ODI chase masterclass. Image source: 1.

Yet another ODI series, yet another successful Indian run chase punctuated by a Kohli hundred. Tall target? No problem – few swishes of the bat produce flicks racing to the boundary, keeping the asking rate in check. Pitched outside off stump? No problem – a succession of crisp cover drives to bring the crowd alive. What can you throw at me, he asks. Oh, by the way, he can also buzz around with a flurry of tapped singled on either side of the wicket. Ace the chase, bow to the crowd and spiel template answers at the presentation party. Ho-hum, this is all so humdrum. Virat “King” Kohli turned 28 yesterday. Twenty eight! He’s yet to reach the peak years of a batsman. The mind boggles at the feats he might conjure in the years to come.

With every passing ODI series, the legend of Virat Kohli only grows louder. It is not just his game that sticks out; his demeanour on and off the field shows a strain of confidence that is very different from the ones displayed by his predecessors. Tendulkar would quietly nod and hold his pose while going about his business. The affable bunch of South Indian gentlemen from the turn of the millennium would mostly be celebrating within themselves lest they offend the opposition. What about Ganguly, you ask? He would strut around by puffing his chest, but it was mostly after the match had been duly won.

This thumbing-my-nose-in-your-face attitude was different. The upstarts from the 2007 T20 World cup had shown that they could rile and wind up even the most seasoned, hard-nosed Aussie. Virat Kohli only took it further by showing his finely developed vocabulary (which would not be out of place in an R-rated Hollywood gangster movie) as he led the U-19 India side to World cup title.

Over these last few years, Kohli has no doubt shed the baby fat. He has learnt to tone down the foul mouth in the recent past – so much so that parents don’t have to reflexively reach out for the remote anymore when he scores a hundred. He has also racked up some ridiculous numbers in the ODI format.

Coming in at number 4 in the test team with an MRF bat in hand, to wild cheers and chants from the crowd, this association with a legend of the game is not merely subliminal. Can the topic of blasphemy be finally broached? Is this formerly-potty-mouthed-now-cleaned-up act comparable to the man who was anointed as God? Gasp!

Spot the difference: TV feed grab showing the similarities between Tendulkar and Kohli. Image source: 2.

Before embarking on his annus mirabilis in 1998 (where he scored 1894 ODI runs in 33 innings), Tendulkar had clocked 173 matches (167 innings). As of 29^th October 2016 (India has finished its ODI quota for 2016), Virat Kohli has played in 176 matches (168 innings). Virat Kohli’s ODI record at this similar juncture is far ahead of Tendulkar’s – and this advantage holds even if the latter’s 1998 exploits are included. Tendulkar’s overall ODI record is surely under threat from Virat Kohli’s insatiable appetite.

The test matches are a different story though; Kohli is yet to come close to Tendulkar’s individual record at a similar stage. More importantly, Tendulkar had already distinguished himself with at least one exceptional innings in each overseas tour; Kohli has fulfilled it partially and will surely get his chance to correct it in the years to come.

Table 1: Comparision of Tendulkar’s and Kohli’s careers at similar vantage points.

In the ODI game too, Kohli and Tendulkar differ in the manner of their records. Tendulkar had a slight preference in batting first and setting up the game. Kohli, as we all know, relishes the chase a lot more, and scores 50% more runs per dismissal while batting second. Kohli’s record while batting first is very good but he’s a victim of his own high standards. Unsurprisingly, the go-to image associated with Kohli is one of a batsman bossing the chase. And every time the Indian team fails to finish a Kohli special, the mind goes back to Tendulkar and the Indian team of the 90s.

What about Tendulkar and chasing?

You think I’m joking, right?

Scenes from a memory: Tendulkar’s many classics in a chase. Images sources: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Sharjah in 1998, 117* in the 2008 CB series, 98 against Pakistan in the World cup are few famous triumphs associated with him. He dazzled with his 175 at Hyderabad, his 65 at Kolkata and his 90 at Mumbai but fell short of the target in varying degrees. He didn’t get going either in the two World Cup finals or the NatWest final.

Why is our perception of Tendulkar chasing intertwined to him not performing under “pressure”? Why is not finishing the job (unlike Kohli) Tendulkar’s albatross? I’m now going to uncomfortable territory with this argument – We know Kohli is good but was Tendulkar any good at all while chasing?

Table 2: Comparision of Tendulkar’s and Kohli’s overall chasing records in ODIs. Kohli seems far ahead of Tendulkar in conventional metrics.

At first glance, comparing Kohli’s chasing record vis-à-vis Tendulkar’s seems like a no-contest. However, we must remember that ODI cricket has changed a lot since Tendulkar’s debut in 1989. For starters, it hadn’t made up its mind about the duration of the match, coloured clothing, third umpire, choice of lighting, fielding restrictions, resolution of weather affected matches or the colour of the ball(s). Hence, it is important to examine records as the ODI format evolved. Here, we will proceed to examine calendar year trends from 1 Jan 1989 (year of Sachin’s debut) through 29 October 2016 (India’s last match for 2016).

ODI calendar: The number of ODI matches played by all teams (red) and India (blue) every calendar year since 1989.

The number of ODI matches per year have steadily increased from 1996 till they reached a peak in 2007. The World cup years have seen a local maximum in terms of matches and the year following a World Cup has seen a significantly lesser number. Since the inaugural T20 world cup in 2007, the number of ODIs have been steady (close to 1999- 2004 levels). The Indian scheduling has largely followed worldwide trends except for a few anomalies.

Table 3: Number of ODI matches played in the segmented time periods.

For this article, time periods have been segmented into four year slices (mostly). Each slice has at least 40 matches where India has chased and also features a World cup. Kohli made his debut in 2008 and batted twice in Indian chases in the 05-08 time period and his record in that era can be ignored. The last two time periods represent how Kohli has batted with and without Tendulkar  in the Indian ODI team mix.

The first slice is five years long and this choice is pretty deliberate. It was that match in Eden Park in 1994 when Tendulkar opened for the very first time (instead of Sidhu, who was injured) and brutalized New Zealand en-route to 82 from 49 balls. The 1996 World cup clearly benefitted India as a team and it discovered its cash cow during the tournament. It was in this setting that the genius of Sachin Tendulkar was beamed via satellite TV to millions of Indian homes.

It was the ODI format which made the legend of Sachin Tendulkar in the 90s; India were largely pedestrian in test cricket until then with isolated periods of excellence. In the test format, a good team batting performance usually only prevents a loss but a good team bowling performance almost always results in a win. Without match winning bowlers, India often came short in test matches as they struggled to capture 20 wickets.

The ODI template is not cut from the same cloth though; it is enough to score enough runs and focus on run containment alone (as opposed to test cricket where the opposition has to be bundled in addition to run containment out for win). Hence, a batsman plays a match winning role more often in ODIs and a team can afford to be successful without a great bowling attack.

Table 4: Overall chasing trends for ODIs from 1 Jan 1989 to 29 Oct 2016.

Looking at the upheaval of the ODI game over the last 28 years, several trends appear. Batting positions 1-4 are still the best place to bat in ODIs – the players get to play >40 balls/ dismissal, ~20% of the innings result in a big score (50s and 100s) and over 2% of the innings result in 100s.  The possibility of staying not-out for an opening batsman is pretty slim (~1 in 14 innings). Batting down the order in a chase increases the odds to ~1 in 8 innings for No.3 and ~1 in 5 innings from No.4 onwards. All things considered, in terms of runs/ dismissal, balls/ dismissal, NO% and big score% – the best place to bat in an ODI chase is at Nos. 3 and 4.

What might be a good metric to benchmark batting strength? Two simple metrics come to mind, namely, the runs per dismissal (batting average) and the strike rate (runs/ 100 balls). The product of the two divided by hundred, called the Batting Index (BI), is an intuitive measure of the contribution of a batsman. Since the primary job of a batsman in a chase is to score runs at a particular clip in pursuit of a target, runs, balls and dismissals are equally important. This measure (BI) encompasses all this information and has been used in stats analysis on various websites. A ratio of batting indices with respect to the baseline gives an idea of how far batsmen were ahead of the field at the time. Only statistics from the second innings were used in generating the baseline.

Table 5: Variation of Batting Index (chasing) across the batting order at different time periods.

The above table gives a good indication of how ODI chasing has changed over the years. At the start of Tendulkar’s career, the middle order (particularly no. 4) was the best place to bat. The baseline has somewhat flattened out from Nos. 1-5, probably due to reasons discussed previously. In the last four years, No. 3 has been the best place to bat.

Table 7: BI ratios for Tendulkar and Kohli (in chases) at different points of time during their career. Kohli’s 05-08 record has not been shown since he played only 2 matches

Looking at the BI ratio, it is fair to say that Tendulkar was an average middle order chasing batsman early on in his career. The middle order stint didn’t help him in piling on big numbers. The move to the opening slot was inspired and how! Tendulkar performed at least 77% higher than an average (1-7) batsman while chasing between 1994 and 2004. Eleven freaking years. Take that in for a moment. Kohli has racked up similar impressive numbers over the last 8 years and his peak is just marginally lower than Tendulkar’s peak.

Table 8: A look batsmen with top BI ratios (chasing), across time periods. A cutoff of 500 runs (pre-89)/ 750 runs (post-89) was applied. Tendulkar performed at a level close to the batsman with the best BI ratio for 11 years between 1994 and 2004.

But how much did these wonderful batsmen dominate the world? For this, we need to look at the entire field. The field comprises a list of batsman (who batted between 1-7 in a run chase) who scored a 500 runs (pre-89)/ 750 runs (post-89), ordered by BI ratio. The minimum runs bar was chosen in accordance with the total number of ODI matches played in a particular time period.

Table 9: Batsmen with the best BI ratio (chasing stats only) between 1994 to 2004. Tendulkar is the only batsman to make it to the top 5 in all three time periods.

Tendulkar was the top chasing batsman between 98-01 and performed 20% higher than the second highest BI ratio batsman in that time period. He was also in the top 5 in the adjacent time periods and was not far-off from the top batsman. He and Gilchrist are the only two players who have BI ratios of more than 1.75 over 3 time periods.

Table 10: Batsmen with the best BI ratio (chasing stats only) between 2005 to 29 Oct 2016. Kohli is within the top 3 over the last 8 years, with de Villiers ahead of him in both time periods. Dhoni, Gambhir and Dhawan have been  batsmen with top class BI ratios as well.

Kohli has been unbelievable, no doubt. But he happens to inhabit the same time period as AB de Villiers, who has made a mockery of chases over the last 8 years. AB was far ahead of the chasing pack between 09-12 but Virat’s chasing BI ratio is quite close to AB’s over the last 4 years.

What about India’s poor chasing record during the 1990s then? Despite popular perception, it wasn’t all rosy during Ganguly’s tenure. In fact, it must be noted that the chasing “monkey” was finally off India’s back only in 2005. India exorcised its chasing demons during the contentious Greg Chappell-Rahul Dravid era when they won 17 matches on the trot while chasing.

Since it has been established that an opening batsman is not out ~7% of the time, an opening batsman can only set up a chase and not finish it ~92% of the time (Fun fact: Tendulkar was not out as an opener in a chase ~11% of the time during his world beating 94-04 years). Invariably, the responsibility of shepherding a team to its target falls on the Nos. 3-5 batsmen. Kohli’s chasing prowess presents itself in the statistics. What about Tendulkar then? Can Kohli be compared to Tendulkar of the 1990s?

ODI giants in our midst: The time periods of Indian players who have scored at least 5000 runs in ODIs. Only the time period for which they were regulars in the team was considered (at least 10 ODI matches/ year at the start or end of their careers).

The answer to this question lies in how Indian players have performed in a run chase. Since 1 Jan 1989, 12 Indian players have amassed 5000 ODI runs and can each stake a claim in India’s all-time ODI squad. The very same players have also racked up 2000 runs each while chasing. Tendulkar has the unique distinction of having played with all of them.

The same BI ratio metric can be used to get a list of top players in each era (at least 500/750 runs while chasing). A cut-off of BI ratio of 1.4 can be applied to separate the really elite players from the rest. It must be noted that maintaining this 1.4 level over a long period of time is extremely rare and only 4 players have achieved this in chases over three time periods – Lara, Tendulkar, Gilchrist and Dhoni.

Table 11: A snapshot of India’s chasing strength over the years. Of late, India has had at least 3 batsmen with BI ratio > 1.4. During Tendulkar’s best period, he could not hail upon similar support.

Depending on the time period, there are 9-17 players who have cleared this bar. A BI ratio of 1.4 implies that the particular batsman has batted at 40% better than a regular batsman. If a team has 3 of them, it implies that they have, in effect, got an extra batsman (with respect to the baseline) in the chase.

The above table contains the answer to India’s chasing woes during Tendulkar’s peak chasing years. Only Ganguly and Sehwag made the cut as top class chasers during Tendulkar’s peak, that too for one time period. At his absolute peak between 1998-2001, he was all alone; and, he had to contend with a lot of chopping and changing across the batting order – 40 players tried out for 7 slots.  ODI teams also faced more high quality bowling those days – Waqar, Wasim, Saqlain, Akthar, Mc Grath, Lee, Warne, Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Ambrose, Walsh, Vaas, Murali and the rest. It was no wonder that the Indian chase collapsed with Tendulkar’s wicket in those times. Unfortunately, Sachin didn’t have much to show for during those 11 years since his team let him down most of the time.

On the other hand, Kohli has always batted in the company of other batsmen who were competent in a run chase. In fact, Gambhir in 05-08 and Rohit Sharma in 13-16 just missed the cut with BI ratios of 1.3. That Kohli has achieved his batting feats with the security of a settled, great batting line-up, against lesser quality bowlers does not belittle his record by any means; he still had to strive hard to make those runs. We must also not forget that Kohli rarely played against teams like Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ireland or Namibia.

It follows that Kohli’s dismissal in a chase, however devastating, has not such a deathblow in a manner of Tendulkar’s dismissal in those 11 years. His true test will be how he bats without the cushion of additional support, like Tendulkar did until 2004. It will probably happen when MS Dhoni retires.

Can Kohli be compared to Tendulkar with this evidence? I would say that every player should only be judged at the end of their career. But pushed for an answer, I would say that regardless of what happens in the future, Kohli has demonstrated world-beating ODI chase credentials and has performed at Sachin’s peak chasing level (the worse part of his record) for 8 years. And then there is the small matter of the other part of Sachin’s record – his better ODI first innings stats and his test statistics.

There is still quite a bit that the king must do to before he can be canonized as God.

Miles to go before I sleep: Kohli paying his respects to Tendulkar during the 2016 T20 World cup. Image source: 9.

Disclaimer: Some images used in this article are not property of this blog. The copyright, if any, rests with the respective owners.

Homo Cricketus- A study on the Sub-species of Batsmen in their natural habitat

The sub- species of batsmen have evolved remarkably since the start of cricket. Image source: 1

Robustus maximus: There are players who manufacture gritty knocks on difficult tracks where they graft runs using a muscle-memory tuned technique. Inumerable number of buckets of sweat and runs are filled and a sloth is made to look like a jet plane during their entire stint at the wicket. So much hard work and sweat that you connect these batsman to reverse osmosis water dispensers when they slug it out at the crease. Examples: Rahul Dravid, Cook, Chanderpaul.

A Flashback to Y2K era: A lot of my friends will attest to the fact that I was a terrible cricketer. I mostly used the bat like a farm implement rather than implement a classy cricketing shot. I was an object of frequent ridicule during my playtime with my friends. I had only recently learnt the intricacies of the binary system and it had crept into my batting as well; I either blasted the ball or didn’t. The subtleties of spending some time and piling on the runs was lost on me. Simply put, I was a love child of Shahid Afridi and Sanath Jayasuriya at a time when big hitting at the top order was viewed with more amazement than TED talks on the internet. My coach was very interested in the various geometries of my joints and their ramifications on my technique. He never took lightly to my perceived bad attitude and often chided me for being a bad example to my fellow campmates. Not that they looked up to me, anyway. Most of my innings were lost in a blur and I would return to the pavilion faster than the cooking time of instant noodles. My fondest memories on the cricket field stem from one innings that I championed, winning one match with a stroke filled 40* (12). 8 boundaries stayed hit, 2 of them were edges and I caused a mini hurricane with my batspeed for the other 2 balls at the crease. Apart from this innings which caused delirium in my camp, it was safe to say that I did not create much waves in cricket.

My father was disappointed with my attitude towards cricket. Being an overactive male child, he had resisted calls of my mother to put me in one of those self defence karate classes to channelize my energy. Being a Tamilian in Delhi meant that apart from knowing the mother tongue at home, scoring a centum at mathematics meant that you were true to your roots. Barring Krishnamachari Srikkanth, of course. The smoking, non- template batsman from Tamil Nadu. Sure, he may have done his bit in the one day game but he was a genuine embarrassment to the state in the Test arena. We, of course, consoled ourselves by looking at the good side- his strike rate. We often name dropped him and Viv Richards in the same breath- blasphemy, I know! A player with a test average of under 30 after 40 test matches only hinted at underachievement. With it, began the association of stroke filled batting with Srikkanth. His reputation would go down a notch with his lustful gaze in an ill-advised advertisement around the 2003 World cup. My brief forays in the cricketing field would only bring back these associations to my father.

Sachin Tendulkar was the sole reason why many Indians became fans of cricket. He was regarded as the solo champion of Indian cricket in the 90s- in contrast, his colleagues (Barring Kumble and Srinath) were hallmarks of incompetence. Why, at the prime of Paaji’s popularity, Times of India, India’s most circulated daily, carried a detailed astrological prediction of his injury at the turn of the 21^st century. In an ideal world, an astrologer, especially whose name literally translates to a ‘lifeless bootlegger’, would not be accorded even a whiff of attention but since the news dealt with the incapacitation of the master blaster, alarm bells rang in every corner of the country. There was an additional fairytale connotation to this prophecy as the astrologer was a Parsi, a community known for being successful in everything they ventured into, starting from the industrial empire of Tatas to the Television production house of Ronnie Screwvala (Even in the present day, Tokyo Sexwale’s bid for FIFA presidency might count as a triumph of the Zoroastrian philosophy, as far as christening goes). It was a foregone conclusion that India would lose heavily in all matches, come the year 2000 and the ‘Y2K apocalypse’ prognosis had transcended its digital barriers to spread its outreach. Every future match featuring India would qualify as a ‘torture tolerance training’ tool for the army, in the event of personnel getting captured behind enemy lines; a theme gaining relevance in the background of the ongoing Kargil conflict.

When all doors are closed, God shows another door: Injuries to Tendulkar forced a reshuffled in the batting order. Image source: 2

Tendulkar’s injury promptly arrived in 2001 and although India had discovered talents like Yuvraj Singh and Zaheer Khan, the heroes of the Champions Trophy 2000, the ODI team’s performance depended heavily on Paaji’s shoulders. Coca Cola cup 2001 featured the unfairly underrated team from New Zealand and a dangerous Sri Lanka, who had become a subcontinent force after their 1996 world cup victory. India, as usual were getting battered in most games and nervously salvaged a few victories against Sri Lanka to stay alive till the final leg of the tourney. As a testament to the vacuum created in the opening position, 4 different combinations were tried out by India in their first 4 matches. An aggressive, bandana wearing hillbilly opener, Amay Khurasia, who suffered from acute leg stump apathy also featured in this Indianized Russian roulette. New Zealand, in particular, were expertly utilizing the seaming conditions to magnify India’s top order struggles. In the 9^th match of the tournament they made 264, the highest total of the tournament (excluding the final), which in the era of lax fielding restrictions was also a steep target. Losing hope, I decided to conduct more meaningful business like counting my eyelashes and having a headache for the rest of the day. In the evening as I was just sauntering through different TV channels, Tendulkar was unleashing an array of strokes in one of them. When did Tendulkar come back from his injury? Even more surprising was the fact that it was not a highlights reel but a ball by ball replay of the day’s match. Curiously, this ball-by-ball replay his innings was swifter than any highlights package of “The best of Rahul Dravid’s” innings. To rouse my curiosity further, the television showed no close-ups of the player nor the scorecard, something akin to a bride groom waiting for the veil of suspense to be lifted. My eyes were confronted with a miracle- here was SRT, hitting the ball like he was on some nerve shattering narcotics- or was I on narcotics, dreaming of this scenario all this while? Finally, the screen flashed his name: Virender Sehwag, The Nawab of Najafgadh. Sehwag was successfully mimicking Tendulkar’s stance and also demonstrating the extremities of destruction associated with it. He scored a 100 from 70 balls which resulted in an Indian victory, but yet his century had a more compelling effect in the news. It may not have been as extraordinary as Houdini pulling out an Eiffel Tower from his hat or as groundbreaking as Gandhi buying some salt from the East India company mall, but it still meant that we could wait for an additional Tendulkar to get out before switching off our TV sets in disappointment. However, critics chose to write him off as a copycat who did not have restraint in shot selection or perfection in balance that the master blaster possessed. “He is a flat track bully, a one trick pony” they said. News agencies were so bad at writing him off that they had not even learnt how to write his name correctly. He was called “Shewag” for while, a name that might one day be associated with a rap artist or a colorful item number.

Spot the difference: Sehwag had developed a reputation for being a Tendulkar clone early on in his career. Image source: 3

In hindsight, since the careers of explosive subconitinent batsmen like Krishnamachari Srikkanth, and Shahid Afridi have indelible marks of inconsistency which translates to failures in pivotal moments and long term frustration for fans, it seemed wise to treat Sehwag’s innings as a flash in the pan. However, A truly impatient, short-sighted, Indian fan always remembers utterly insignificant moments and elevates even smaller flashes- in- a –larger- pan performances to monumental levels, only to later ruefully extend to unremarkable cricketing careers.

In the next match, Sri Lanka put 295 on the board and Sehwag flags off the chase with a boundary off the first ball he faces. Instantly, Indian spectators pin the quest of victory on the new master blaster, the copycat torch bearer. As with every modern soap opera which features four mother-in-laws and their motherless daughter-in-law, tragedy strikes early. Sehwag is run out. Match over. Time to switch off the TV sets again. This was just another interrupted wet dream.

Utterly failicus: There are batsmen who the snobbish, elite spectators owe their existence to their burgeoning vocabulary and daily bread to. Spectators, who have an entitled overview of things in every sphere, while attaching flowery jargon like sheer magnetism, perfect synergy of poise and movement, nimble footedness, exuberant minimalistic strokeplay for a person wielding nothing but a carved log of wood (which might otherwise have been more useful as a leg for someone’s dining room furniture or a poor man’s fishing pole or even as door for tiny men in some undiscovered rainforest). These celebrated players also indulge in excesses such as over the top tumbling while taking regulation catches and marathon- run celebrations after taking the wicket of a rank tail-ender, with their part-time neither off nor leg spin. Justifiably, the type of players who are subjected to the above mentioned extravagant praise are also responsible for causing massive batting collapses. Example: A passing mention of Rohit Sharma’s name in India (circa 2012) evokes a feeling you get when you enter a wedding hall to eat your full, but leave empty stomached as the cook has eloped with the bride just minutes ago.

Bond. Shane Bond: Bond was the spearhead of the Kiwi attack which terrorized Indian batsmen in 2002-03. Image source: 4.

Flashback to Y2K era: Batting on fast and green pitches is difficult for our batsmen, as I would find out after many inept displays. Add wind and cloud cover and you are at the eye of the tornado. You may even fancy batting on the top of a bus or a taxi like this Nike ad campaign would suggest years later. India was touring NZ and batsmen were obviously struggling to muster double digit scores on either side of the innings. Sehwag was prematurely written off owing to his leaden footed, blade flashing characteristics. Indians were chasing a target of 200, which in those playing conditions was equivalent to chasing 400 on benign surfaces. What followed was an absolute carnage unleashed by Virender Sehwag on his way to a century. Swing? What swing? Only the swing of a bat to banish the ball. ‘Beyond a boundary’ seemed like a memoir associated with a ball hit by Sehwag rather than a book written by C. L. R. James. He singlehandedly wins the match for India, though true fans would argue that it was Nehraji’s single greatest contribution to cricket until Wayne Parnell declared him his idol. The match even featured Paaji, who was batting at number 4 in the batting order. This fact alone could count as a true mark of Virender Sehwag’s effectiveness for he had temporarily dislodged the most celebrated batsman of the world from his regular position. Perhaps the strategy behind keeping Paaji in the middle order was to strengthen our middle order but it also implicitly suggested that the top order had enough ammunition to handle the start of the innings. Or it was probably an understanding that the Butcher of Najafgadh will complete matches on his own and provide some deserving rest to the weary hands of the little genius. In some ways he was a vacation package for Paaji. India may have lost the series 2-5, but the art of toying with the oppositions was invented.

The following years witnessed a strange phenomenon. Indian fans were happy to see Sehwag dispatch every other ball to the boundary, even if their team lost. They wanted to see boundaries. They wanted to see audacity. Not the kind involving middle fingers or cuss words or mid- pitch anger conferences, but the kind where a person with a rotund physique is decimating the big names of world cricket. The last time when bowlers with run ups faster than their bowling speed mastered the world was in 1983. Soon people wanted to know what Sehwag has for breakfast and his strong familial ties integrated the phrase ‘Sehwag ki maa’ in the Indian lexicon till Virat Kohli stripped the term ‘maa’ to its Oedipal limits. Purists complain about balance between ball and bat or of conditions forcing one sided matches these days. None of this talk existed when Sehwag batted. He turned one sided matches into adrenaline filled encounters. The new question was “is he going to hit a six or a four?”. A single taken by Sehwag was equivalent to an advertisement break between overs. In the middle of his career, the Nawab of Najafgadh changed his technique involving a higher backlift stating that this modification might help him hit more boundaries. Who talks like that? Such chutzpah from Indian kids earned a well- deserved thrashing from their parents. But the results were there to see. After a few failures, Sehwag became the most destructive batsman on earth. Shoaib Akhtar talked about seeing fear in Paaji’s eyes or forcing Ganguly to flutter his eyelids or making 20 yr old girls wink at him, but no one dared to say that about Sehwag. Writers got kicks out of lauding the fact that he didn’t slow down in the 90s but he was never about milestones. His batting equalized the thrill of winning to the gratification of boundary hitting. Hapless faces of the opposition captain served as a sadistic experience for serial killers and indifferent monks alike. And this was his effect in limited overs cricket, a format where an average of 35 hints at underachievement when compared to his more celebrated peers.

Masterus Strokupus: There are batsmen who have no technical flaws and get dismissed by unconceivable events like unadjusted batting gear (Sachin Tendulkar) or disturbances near the sightscreen (Sangakkara) or by the sheer coincidence of a space satellite being launched some 40000 miles away. Other examples: Steve Waugh, AB de Villiers, Jacques Kallis, Lara.

Indian test cricket has tried many openers. On paper we had the finest middle order there has ever been. It started with Dravid, had Paaji as a transitionary lynchpin and ended with Ganguly and Laxman. Hailed as the fab four, this was an evergreen combination which could, in theory, bat out any opposition in all types of conditions. Being traditional in approach, India never expected runs from a lower order and even now most of the tail looks awkward holding a bat. Of the combinations tried for the opening slot, Ramesh looked good for a while but was dropped for his lack of footwork and sporadic performances. Sehwag was tried at this slot and India, for a brief period, was the top team in the world. We had two world class bowlers in Zaheer and Kumble and one blade flashing demon at the top. There is no doubt that from the perspective of batting, Sehwag alone was responsible for making sure India wins matches. The fab four was a back-up tool to ensure draws or reducing the margins of an innings defeat, on occasions. Statistics will prove that point, since the fab four existed long before Viru made his entry in tests. The talk about being a flat track bully remained. However, the fuss about being a flat track bully also begs the question: If it is so simple why couldn’t other batsmen reproduce such monumental innings? Nevertheless, to lend perspective to such disparaging remarks, it should be mentioned that the man’s first century as an opener came at Trent Bridge, a place that groomed the celebrated swing bowler, James Anderson.

Uglius Performacus: There are batsmen who might look good when standing and posing with energy drinks and bathroom mops, but introducing a bat in their hand causes mirror industries to close down due to unexpected premature shattering of their whole stock. Every shot they play shreds a page in the cricket manual and results in the spontaneous combustion of a piece of art in the Louvre. They qualify as an unsuspecting pedestrian, with poor housekeeping skills, who got selected in a detergent lucky draw contest to try a hand at washing clothes and due to some unfortunate error, entered a cricket stadium. Examples: MS Dhoni, GC Smith.

Ajanta, the man of the many flexible fingers: Mendis bamboozled all the Indian batsmen in 2008, barring Sehwag. Image source: 5

Flashback to 2008: Sri Lanka had produced another unconventional bowler after Murali and Malinga. Unconventional, because no one could understand if he was an offie or a leggie. And he had too many flexible fingers. Rather than diverging and talking about his use of such gifted fingers it is sufficient to acknowledge that Sri Lanka had found a secret weapon. However, the litmus test for any successful spinner is their performance against India on turning tracks. Traditionally, Indian batsman had a habit of feasting on offerings served by Warne and Murali but Mendis was a different threat. Rumour had it that the National literacy commission had come up with a new circular to improve India’s reading of Mendis. The fab four declared that they had seen his videos closely and had plans against him. Paaji suggested he would play him like a medium pacer. However, one test match against Mendis was enough to make the fab four look like farmers planning to buy land in Antartica for growing a tropical fruit. In a dramatic turnaround, India won the next test. But the fab four failed again with Mendis and Murali taking bulk of the wickets. The only difference in the equation was Sehwag, who produced the most brutal batting display ever seen, on his way to a double century while his more celebrated teammates, hailed as the greatest handlers of spin (VVS was known to hit the same ball in two directions with the roll of his wrists), were forced to read textbooks on concepts of frictional rotational dynamics. Mystery spin? What Mystery? Keep your mystery in your English novel, Viru would have said. The fact that both teams batted like a group of monkeys is reminiscent of Sehwag’s ODI innings in Auckland but there was a difference. He single handedly dismantled Mendis’ once promising career. A similar story of Sehwag ending a career with his brutality starred Saqlain Mushtaq in a test match played at Multan. If Paaji was Warne’s nightmare, Sehwag was a nightmare within a nightmare on a loop while you are being fed sleep inducing drips to prolong it.

Spinnus deflatus: Some Batsmen do not understand spin and hate the idea of friction. Most likely to buy and wear fashionable slippers designed from banana peels to promote PETA or recycled products. Play pace well. Examples: Daryl Cullinan, Yuvraj Singh, Every clichéd batsman from England.

There is no madness to Sehwag. He attributes it to the theory of ‘see ball, hit ball’. Though, that is probably not a theory in itself- he surprisingly manufactures elegant strokes to go with his aggression. He does not need to invent shots like the switch hit, Helicopter hit, paddle scoop, dilscoop or muralicharge to scatter the fields set for him. His downfall cannot be classified as the result of a rash stroke possibly induced by rush of blood. We just understand the feelings associated with the man’s desire to to hit a six.

Bloodrush sloggus: The intensity with which they flash their bats at a ball might make one feel that the batsman is lashing out from memories of a painful childhood encounter with a goat. Also probably suffer from some psychological disorder where the spherical shape hurts them so much that their whole lifestyle is based on altering its shape by any means. Do not give two hoots about the match situation Ex.: Shahid Afridi, Yousuf Pathan, the recent West Indies cricket team.

All this glory and we haven’t even touched upon his greatest attribute: his straightforwardness. Just one example is enough to prove that he believes completely in what he is saying. Before India were touring Bangladesh, a journalist asked Sehwag if Bangladesh would give India a good fight. He responded saying that Bangladesh is an ordinary team because they cannot take 20 wickets. Hearing these statements, Bangladesh bowlers expressed their angst and even promised to bite back. Incidentally, India won the match and only lost 18 wickets after which Sehwag just added more salt to their wounds.

Making India’s chest swell with pride: Sehwag has played a major part in India’s cricketing prowess in the last decade. Image source: 6

While many people can be categorized under various aforementioned species of batsmanship, Sehwag remains a true original. An original to change a mindset. A few months ago, I had been back to my old stomping ground, Delhi. I took a gentle stroll around the bylanes that I had spent plenty of my formative years. My walk around the neighbourhood yielded much surprise; the old buildings were not there, the demographics had changed and the look of the place had changed. The cricket ground was still there though. I went there, for old time’s sake. Truth be told, I had picked the running bug by then and given the paucity of open spaces, a cricket ground offered unhindered space for a run. The choice of music in my earphones suggested that my sensibilities were old as well. I had become the proverbial “uncle” who would stop mid-way through my run and toss the ball back after its unintended journey behind the wickets. Although, one thing had changed. Kids were not intent on leaving the ball anymore and would often hit a shot which many would have avoided in my time. Instead of being pilloried by their coaches and hangers on, I was surprised to see sounds of encouragement. Hit the ball harder to clear the fielder, I heard. I want my childhood back.

Virender Sehwag: Bats like no one. Does not worry about the result. Entertains. Changes the way people view cricket. Changes the way cricket is played. Remains straightforward. Retires from the game in an unperturbed manner, much like his debut.

I feel the need….. the need for speed

You’re dangerous Maverick: The movie that catapulted Tom Cruise’s action hero credentials to the public consciousness. Image source: 1

In 1986, the movie Top Gun ruled the box office, raking in more than 350 million dollars. The movie was centered on kinship with a fellow wingman, dangerous piloting skills, classic rivalry and a man who was yet to be synonymous with the mission impossible franchise. The movie made the thirst for speed and living dangerously sexy. The movie put bums on seats but did not win any of the major awards at the Academy. The movie was credited with the surge in sales of the Ray Ban Aviator model and a 500% increase in the number of men wanting to be Naval Aviators. I was far too young in 1986 to remember the iconic quote from the movie which typified “Maverick” but years later, when I caught it on Satellite television, it was already a rite of passage for high school boys in India eager to demonstrate a grasp of “other” cultures. Many a superstar has vied for the crown of the all action Hollywood star but even today, at 50+, few can match Tom Cruise in his sheer penchant for high octane action. The iconic quote inspired a racing game series, which in turn had a symbiotic relationship with the Fast and Furious franchise. The basic premise was built on the viewing thrill of a protagonist’s adrenaline being fuelled by the need for speed.

Sehwag is the only batsman alongside Bradman to have scored 250+ four times and 290+ three times in test cricket. Image source: 2

One could be mistaken for making the association of Sehwag’s career with the very same set of words. After all, the much loved Paul Walker from the Fast and the Furious franchise had a character timeline overlapping with Sehwag’s. Rajesh and Sidvee have deconstructed Sehwag’s legacy in the Indian team in their own very contrasting ways. Sehwag’s buccaneering style brought a smile to a country which wanted to define its own place in the world, poignantly captured- in a narrative of Gavaskar, Tendulkar and Sehwag intertwined together with India’s story- by an American in the midst of the 2011 World Cup. The numbers are there for everyone to see; Sehwag has 4 out of the top 6 highest scores made by an Indian in a test match. For a generation so used to seeing the 236* as the proverbial four minute mile from a bygone era, the floodgates opened from 2001 with 9 forays into unchartered waters with Sehwag as the most frequent navigator. This exemplified India’s golden age of batting more than anything else.

Sehwag’s record as an opener is exemplary- amongst the openers who have scored 5000 test runs, Sehwag is perched in the company of other illustrious batsmen such as Hutton, Hobbs, Hayden and Gavaskar as the only men to average above 50. As many statisticians have pointed out, Sehwag is in a league of his own in the strike rate as an opener measure, a lofty 83 with others in the whereabouts of 60 since 2001 (minimum 5000 runs). The numerical value of SR at 83 has its own significance- it means that Sehwag scored at a run rate of ~5 when the rest of the world scored at 3.24 (SR of 54). Adam Gilchrist, of the swashbuckling blade that followed 5 batsmen who scored at 45+ per dismissal, is the only peer who is in the neighbourhood of Sehwag in the last 20 years. This is an exemplary achievement considering that only 20 men have scored 5000 runs at a greater strike rate in the ODI format, with Richards, Jayasuriya and Tendulkar as the only players to make their debut before 1996.

A shot in time, saves nine: Sehwag, as a result of his quick batting, has saved more overs than any other test cricketer. Image source: 3

A knock- on effect of Sehwag’s blitzkrieg strike rate is his balls faced per dismissal. Sehwag has one of the lowest balls faced per dismissal (60) as a consequence of his high strike rate (discounting lower order batsmen of course). To put this into perspective, other top notch batsmen (average ~50 for whom ball by ball data is available), clock in at least 100 balls per dismissal as they score at a serene 50 SR. In other words, for scoring the same 50 runs, Sehwag saves ~6.4 overs per dismissal at a bare minimum. If we stretch this to further to Kallis/ Dravid territory (123+ balls per dismissal), Sehwag gave his teammates an extra 10.3 overs by the time he scored his 50 runs and got dismissed. The impact of the extra overs to bowl out the opposition cannot be discounted. Hayden and Smith were part of sides which had their bowling attack dismiss a batsman every 60 balls. This implies that when Australia & South Africa were winning test matches, they were conceding 600 runs and in turn dismissing the opposition in 200 overs (a little over 2 days). In contrast, India with a pedestrian bowling attack had to face the double whammy of conceding 35 runs per wicket and bowl an extra ~1.2 overs per dismissal. The corresponding figures that India would accrue are 700 runs after managing to dismiss the opposition twice, thus staying on the field for 25 overs extra. By virtue of India’s poor bowling attack, not only were India 100 runs behind overall, but were also on the field for almost a full session. This only implies that for every 50 that Sehwag scored, he gave India a better chance of victory. Since his appetite for big scores was legendary, he gave India an extra 20 overs (at the very least) on his own account to dismiss the opposition twice every time!

Progression of career strike rates of Sehwag, Hayden and Smith at the top of the order in the test format. Quite clearly, Sehwag has been the most destructive opener in the history of Test cricket.

Amongst Sehwag’s contemporaries, only Hayden and Smith are of comparable stature, deeds and statistics (SR ~60, Average> 49). But here too, Sehwag is in a one man club when his strike rate is considered. The extent of his dominance over his two other illustrious peers is illustrated in the fact that Sehwag’s lowest ever career strike rate is comparable to the highest ever career strike rates of Hayden and Smith. In the time period of 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2013 (the corresponding years that Sehwag played for India), Australia, South Africa and India were the teams with the best W/L ratio and batting averages. Coincidentally, the three openers played with some terrific batsmen down the order. The fact that each player has 3 other players below them in a stable batting order averaging over 49 has a nice touch of symmetry to it (over 3500 test runs). Here too, the Australian team was in a different zone with 4 other players in the 45 to 49 runs per dismissal band and if the bar is set lower at 1000 runs, the list is infested with ten Australians in all. Clearly, the Australians were able to find personnel to perform at a high level even after key personnel retired/ were dropped and this was a cornerstone to their success.

A plot of the percentage of (a) Wins from the total innings of 50+, 100+ and 150+ scored by top batsmen from Ind, Aus and RSA in Sehwag’s time. * Indicates that only figures as an opening batsmen have been considered.

Proceeding to examine the hypothesis of Sehwag’s whirlwind batting at the top of the order, one has to see the relative merits of scoring big and their concomitant effects on the result. Considering that a batsman has historically scored at ~37 runs per dismissal in the case of a win or a draw and ~21 in a defeat, a big score by a key batsman can have profound implications in the result of a match- mostly, a victory or a draw. Of course, the maxim of a side having to take 20 wickets to win a match rings loud and clear but the underlying effect of scoreboard pressure and setting up a match cannot be ignored. A key assumption made in this analysis is that with a greater score individual score being amassed, on an average, has a greater chance of a big team score being made and thus swinging the match in favour of the batsman’s team. Upon observing the historical trends of instances of a particular result occurring upon a batsman scoring over 50, over 100 and over 150 respectively, several patterns become clear. In spite of having similar batting giants dot the batting lineups of three winningest teams in the aforementioned period (1 Jan 2001 to 31 Dec 2013), the effect of a good bowling lineup is there for everyone to see. In general, scoring big is a guarantee to higher percentage of instances of victory and draws. However, for Indian batsmen, only Dravid is within sniffing distance of the level achieved by the Oz and Saffers; he has been on the winning side 60% of the time, that too after scoring a 150. Indian batsmen usually languish in the 40- 50% band, whereas, the batsmen from the other teams with better bowling attacks were able to force a favourable result for their respective teams.

A plot of the percentage of (b) Losses & (c) Draws from the total innings of 50+, 100+ and 150+ scored by top batsmen from Ind, Aus and RSA in Sehwag’s time. * Indicates that only figures as an opening batsmen have been considered.

A draw has been the most likely outcome when an Indian batsmen has scored big which is a damning indictment on the Indian team’s bowling inability to close out a match after piling on the runs. Universally, scoring big is the surest way to avoid defeat but this result should not come as a surprise given the very premise. Every batsman barring Hayden have featured in lesser defeats (% wise) after scoring a big hundred. A special mention should be made to the bullet proof batting lineup of the South Africans; every time Smith has scored a 100 or Amla/ Kallis/ de Villiers have scored a 150, their team has never lost! That this holds true from Kallis’ timeperiod to date is even more impressive.

A histogram of (a) India’s run rate versus Sehwag’s strike rate. India has outscored Sehwag’s career strike rate only once, that too with Sehwag’s 200.

And now to the end product of Sehwag’s heroics- the result. India have never been able to capitalize on Sehwag’s blazing starts. He’s the only batsman in this elite bunch whose likelihood of victory went down (correspondingly, the likelihood of a draw increased) with each addition of 50 to the individual score. His Win% drops from 42 to 27 when he zooms from 50 to 150 (in spite of him saving 6 overs per 50 additional runs scored, on an average). And given that he has scored pretty quickly, it only means that India have not put the extra overs that Sehwag has earned to good use. The Loss% has dropped no doubt but India have had a tendency to pile on the draws whenever Sehwag scored big. An explanation to this puzzling conundrum can be obtained upon perusal of the run rates that India have scored at. Sehwag has got a start (at least 20 runs) in 102 out 180 innings as an opener; only 2 of these innings have a SR of 50 (RR= 3) or lower and 12 are below SR of 67 (RR= 4). It is a result of these fantastic combustive ability that Sehwag’s lowest cumulative batting strike rate as an opener is an incredible 65, that too way back in 2002. Of all the matches that India have played with Sehwag in the side, only 11 of 103 matches have been above this run rate mark of 4. Keep the benchmark at Sehwag’s career run rate of 5 runs per over, only 1 match makes the cut. Unsurprisingly, Sehwag’s blitzkrieg 200 played a huge part in the run rate being 5 in the first place.

On the other hand, (b) Australia and (c) South Africa have scored at a faster rate compared to their respective opening batsmen, Hayden & Smith. The distribution of the histograms shows a greater number of innings clustered over the 3.8 RPO mark.

Simply put, India have never been able to press home the advantage once Sehwag got dismissed and at many times, batted apologetically at a lesser pace- as if to compensate for the carnage that had unfolded. On the other hand, Australia and South Africa scored at a comparable pace to the career strike rates of Hayden and Smith and in some cases, even higher than their highest cumulative career strike rate. Granted, Hayden and Smith did not bat at the same rate as Sehwag but even if we could hypothetically consider, rather sacrilegiously, that Sehwag were to be a part of these Australian and South African sides, they were more likely to follow his fireworks with some more of their own. The Indians, more often than not, were content in bringing out the sparklers once the big firecrackers blazed brightly against the festival sky.

Cruise and Sehwag: Two of a kind; both have accomplished pretty astonishing feats, best enjoyed on prime time TV. Caution: These stunts are performed by professionals. Please do not try this at home. Image sources: 4 & 5.

Sehwag’s detractors will be quick to point out that he made his big runs in Asia. While this may be true, not all of his knocks came on featherbeds. The sight of a spinner made him bring out the heavy artillery and he played with the mentality of a big game hunter. Others may point to majority of his big hundreds resulting in draws and imply that he scored easy runs and found the going tough on seaming pitches. And many others would simply blame his inability to bat for time, forgetting the very essence of Sehwag which changed the complexion of a match and made chasing 387 possible. This lingering sentiment encapsulates the hold that Sehwag has on us; like Tom Cruise, he’s never really been an actor who has won the plaudits for the depth & range of his craft. Yet, one can put his/ her money on him to make the most death defying stunts seemingly in range, even at an older age. To bring a smile to the face and some popcorn when he’s on the screen. Put bums on seats and bring some life to the turnstiles year after year. And get a warm, fuzzy feeling of nostalgia whenever “Take my breath away” or “Danger zone” or “Playing with the boys” is requested on the radio.

 Disclaimer: Some images used are not property of this blog. The copyright, if any, rests with the respective owners.

Undue clamour grows for Dhoni’s head

What next for MS? Problems aplenty on the horizon. Image source: 1

If one were to glance the papers and observe the media over the last  two weeks, an observation that Dhoni is a wanted man is not out of place. Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown rings loud and clear after a series defeat to Bangladesh. If recent reports from his former coach are to be believed, there are suggestions of a rift in the dressing room. It is definitely not the first time something like this has been alleged against Dhoni in the matters of Sehwag, Gambhir and Yuvraj. Although, the links of him freezing them out of the team are tenuous at best, given that they were dropped after plenty of chances. Though Dhoni retains the backing of several Indian former captains and some teammates, the murmurs about the Indian team’s poor performance abroad refuse to die down and with it grows the unease about his captaincy. In the last 2 years, India has performed below par on the South Africa, New Zealand, Bangladesh bilateral tours and also in the tri- series before the world cup. Adding to this curious mix is Kohli’s honeymoon period of aggressive test captaincy (which is hailed as a breath of fresh air) and his comments on the team not expressing itself and the plot is replete with murky undercurrents. Cricinfo has two pieces on this issue- one is by Kalra where he talks about an absence of an immediate threat to Dhoni’s captaincy, which is not due to Kohli’s recent patchy form; the second one is by Monga where he makes an unfair comment by stating that Dhoni does not have match winning innings since June 2013.

If the Indian ODI team’s performance over the last two years is examined (until 26th June 2015), the source of the problem can be identified. Examining the batting average of regular batsmen who have scored more than 500 runs in these 2 years, the Indian top order is well represented in the top 10. A more worrying statistic is in the middle order- only 1 Indian batsman averages significantly higher than 33 (guess who?) and is amongst the top 3 players in the world in his position. The number 33 is important in this context as it represents the overall batting average of a middle order batsman in the last two years. India have found it difficult to perform when the top order is not able to mount a suitable platform.  He aired his concerns on these lines recently and his  move to no. 4 is also the result of a failed experiment of Kohli in that position, despite his success when Gautam Gambhir made the no. 3 his own close to the 2011 World Cup. It comes as no surprise that India are struggling to find consistency in the middle order with constant changes over the last few series and Ajinkya Rahane’s, the frontrunner amongst the pack, has found the going difficult in holding down the position imposed upon him. The issue of a brittle middle order poses a two- fold risk on someone like Dhoni- one, he has to make sure that he stays till the end given that the others have not performed in the last two years and two, the risks that he takes have to be high percentage shots rather than go all guns blazing. This strange dichotomy between the needs of the team that needed to co-exist simultaneously (i.e. preservation and destruction) has inevitably led to their weird marriage i.e. Dhoni’s performance at no. 6 over the last 2 years, as expressed in this article by Muthu:

So India have to make do with that rickety lower order. Dhoni has had to contend with it for months and admitted it has affected his game. So much that he leapfrogged to No. 4 against Bangladesh to set the game up, as opposed to worrying about damage control. Over the last two years, batting at No. 6 he has managed a strike rate over 115 only on five occasions. Because India, over the last two years, have been four down for less than 150 a total of 26 times. Predictably, they have lost 17 of those games.

Upon examining Monga’s remark, i.e. Dhoni’s record over the last 2 years, with the cognizance of the circumstances in which they were made,  the issue of significant contributions can be answered on the basis of one tenet – did Dhoni improve the team’s position by virtue of his innings with respect to what he was dealt with? Proceeding to examine individual cases:

1) Against SL in the final, Dhoni took India over the line, batting with the tail for the most part with a photo finish 15 runs in the last over. Tense Indian win.

2) Against Aus, he came in at 76/4 in the 13th over and got India to 303 scoring 139 not out. Close loss.

3) In the ODI where Rohit Sharma scored his first 200, Dhoni scored 68 at highest SR amongst teammates. Big Indian win.

4) Against WI, Dhoni cames in at 203/4 in 38th over. Scored 51 off 40 and stayed not out. He had the highest SR amongst Indians who scored 20. Close Indian loss.

5) Against SA, chasing 358, he top scored for the team with second highest SR. Only Indian batsman to cross 50. India loses match badly.

6) Against NZ, came in at 123/3 in 23rd over chasing 277 in 41.3; departed 20 adrift of the target with 2 overs to go scoring a quickfire 56. India wins a tight match

7) Against NZ, came in at 79/4 in 18 overs chasing 314. Departed at 184/5 in 35th over. Match tied.

8) Against NZ, came in at 100/3 in 25 overs. Stayed not out with highest score and took India to 278. India loses match.

9) Against Eng, came in at 132/4 in 30 overs. Got out after playing support act to Raina and taking India to 304. Big Indian victory.

10) Against WI, came in at 179/4 and scored a quickfire 50 to take India to 263. Massive Indian win.

11) Against WI, target of 182 in the WC. Came in at 78/4 in 18th over. Situation changed to 107/5 and 134/6. Stayed afloat and top scored to victory with 6 overs to spare with Ashwin for company for the last 50 runs. Tricky Indian win.

12) Against Zim with 288 target in WC. Came in at 92/4 in 23rd over. Match finished with an over to spare with second highest score and highest SR. Tricky Indian win.

13) Against Aus wih 329 as target. India in contention till the 12th over. Only one of 2 Indians to have a respectable score. Massive defeat.

14) Againt Bangladesh, came in at 114/2 in the 20th over and departed scoring the second highest score before Raina’s fireworks. Massive Indian victory.

Of the total 33 innings that Dhoni has batted in, he has played a significant hand in the team performance in 14. It is not correct to claim that he did not have a match winning hand in the last 2 years and certainly without Dhoni’s contributions in the above matches, the outcome could have been so very different in most of the cases. Given that cricket is a team sport, one is always slave to the hand that a player is dealt with (especially for a middle order batsman) and on any day, another player can lay claim to the most important contribution of the game. It must also be noted that the man of the match award is usually given to the victorious team and the award could have easily ended up in Dhoni’s hands if the result had played out differently in some of the above instances. Therefore, basing an argument on man of the match awards is unwarranted especially when the winning side possibly wins it 90% of the time. It is not possible for any player to come up with match winning performances/ end up on the winning side at all times and counting the man of the match award alone belies the number of significant contributions made by a player. In the last one year, where Dhoni has been off colour, he has scored 41 runs per dismissal at 85 SR as opposed to the average middle order batsman (cutoff 340 runs) who scored 34 runs at 89 SR. It is a measure of his consistency that in his off colour year, he has averaged more than 20% higher than a regular middle order peer at a very similar strike rate (Raina has found form this last year) . In any case, his average over the last year is more than the career average of many celebrated players of the last two decades.

Every cricketer is human and it is natural for any person’s value in the team to be questioned from time to time. However, the length of the rope given to a certain player often betrays popular logic- it could be based on a captain’s alleged favouritism, lack of alternatives based on a team’s style of play or a selection committee’s punt on intangibles such as talent. Indian fans will certainly attest to many of these sentiments in the case of Ravindra Jadeja, Rohit Sharma, and Ishant Sharma. Why, even the peerless Rahul Dravid in the midst of a wretched spell which lasted a little over two years was the subject of some chatter. During the time, one couldn’t escape the feeling that he was given so many chances as his slump was interpreted by the powers that be as vagaries of a sportsman’s performance rather than diminishing of ability. Dravid himself lent weight to this sentiment (also echoed by Border in the context of Ponting) during the afterglow of an Indian summer in 2011:

It is difficult when you are used to being a big contributor to the side and suddenly the runs stop coming. “I know I had earned a lot of brownie points for what I had done over the six years before that,” Dravid says, “but surely those brownie points were running out at some stage.”

On this note, a spot for a beleaguered player who has performed exceptionally year after year (calendar-wise) should not be in question especially when any stellar player can have an off year of two- past and present doyens of the ODI field (no less) such as Tendulkar, Richards and A B deVilliers have distinctly off coloured reports cards in ~20% of their annual performances. On the weight of this evidence and precedence of natural variance in yearly performance even amongst the best performers, the calls for Dhoni’s head are uncalled for and his critics are certainly barking up the wrong tree. Indian cricket would do well to build the ODI team around Virat Kohli in the future but it would be extremely foolish to continue this witch-hunt against the corner-stone of India’s ODI prowess in the last decade.

Links: Indian cricket roundup

In the last one week, some very interesting developments have emerged from the world of Indian cricket

1) A much awaited interview of Virat Kohli by Nagraj Gollapudi is on the June cover of The Cricket Monthly. This interview peels the mask of India’s test captain who explains his philosophy, views on Indian cricket and does not shy away from answering questions about his private life.

Watching you and reading about you, it seemed like you went into that Australia series like you were building up to a boxing match: the shop talk started from the weigh-in and carried on till the end of the series. Why was this necessary?
I knew it was going to be difficult. I knew there would be a lot of mental games fought, a lot of words, a lot of talk. As a subcontinent player, as an Indian player, the general feeling has been that we are not supposed to talk like this. I do not connect to that, because if an opposition is doing it and they are still performing, there has to be a disconnect between talking and doing. It is not as if I have said something in a press conference and then I will go out to bat thinking, “Oh, I have said something, now what if I don’t do well?” Eventually I have a bat in hand and the guy is running in with a ball in hand. He is not running in to smash that statement in my face. So if a team is willing to play the mental battle, you should be good enough to tackle that. And eventually it is a battle of skills when you go in the field. I don’t mix the two. Off the field I am countering what is being said. Why should we succumb to the mental pressure or mental games the opposition plays with us?

Right from his U19 days, he’s not shied away from verbal duels and it is something that we’ve made fun of on this blog before. We hope he does well for Indian cricket but the more we see him, the more he reminds us of Ponting. He surely won’t have the bowlers that Ponting had and this will have an impact on the results he seeks. But one thing is sure- one failure and everyone is going to take his case due to the body language and attitude he’s adopted.

2) BCCI has appointed Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman in an advisory committee  and Rahul Dravid as the coach of the India A and U-19 teams. Given the fond memories that they’ve given Indian fans over the last 25 years, we’re quite excited about the trajectory that they will chart for the Indian teams of the future.

3) Indian umpire S Ravi makes it to the ICC Elite Panel of umpires. He’s attributed his ascension to the IPL and we hope that more Indian umpires make it to the Elite panel and it also reflects on the general standard of umpiring in the Indian cricketing tournaments.

4) The vultures are circling around N Srinivasan with two of his loyalists being removed from the Indian support staff team. Given the feathers he’s ruffled, it was only a matter of time when the shoe was on the other foot.

The thrill of the chase

Premise

As the din of the world cup dies down and the focus shifts to the IPL, the moment is right to reflect on India’s progress as an ODI team in the last decade. A telling example of India’s mindset is that majority of its fans believed they had a chance to win the semifinal until the thirteenth over of the chase. There was a time in India’s cricketing history when every fan would twitch uneasily whenever India chased. No target was too easy and no victory was taken for granted in the 1990s. What caused this turnaround? Many people reckon that the turnaround happened under Sourav Ganguly and attribute the pivotal moment to that chase at Lord’s. This article aims to get cozy with the data and look for the facts of India’s chasing prowess.

Note: All statistics are correct till March 31, 2015 and the data used for the graphs can be found in this file: 6- The thrill of the chase stats.

Scene 1: World cup 1999

Chasing 283 for victory in the 1999 World cup Super 6 match, India found itself in trouble when Tendulkar was dismissed for a duck. Image source: 1

It was the second half of the year 1999. Just a couple months had passed after the purported apocalypse prediction by Nostradamus. The chatter amongst Bangalore school kids was that although the brilliant Nostradamus had not failed in his earlier predictions, he was slightly off with this one with the Y2K bug right around the corner being the latest interpretation of his prophecy. The cricket fan in me however, had seen apocalypse at the 1999 World cup in England. The super 6 match against Australia was a disaster. Chasing 283 for victory and grabbing the 2 points which were essential for progress (India had not collected any points from their group due to their losses against SA and Zimbabwe), the team lost by a massive 77 runs- the margin of victory was far smaller compared to the extent of domination of the Australian team. It was due to the fifth wicket partnership between Jadeja and Robin Singh after being reduced to 17/4 in the seventh over which brought a semblance of respectability to the scorecard. Glenn McGrath was the wrecker in chief, grabbing the prized scalp of Tendulkar in the first over. Several Indian cricket fans would have used a snarky gallows humour reference to this Pepsi ad (if Twitter were to exist in 1999) to question who was on strike in the first over- SRT or SRK. India would later exit the tournament playing a dead rubber against New Zealand but leaving with seemingly meaningless records such as the first hundred, 6 of the 12 highest scores and four different batsmen scoring hundreds.

Scene 2: LG cup 1999

The batting mainstay of the Karnataka team of the late 1990s. Image source: 2

Fast forward to October, India had limped on after the disappointment of the world cup to the LG cup series in Kenya. My hero Sachin Tendulkar missed the series due to injury thus giving the seaon’s Ranji trophy top scorer, Vijay Bharadwaj, a chance to play for the Indian team. I was naturally chuffed that the shining light of Karnataka’s Ranji season was going to represent India and I was upbeat about his chances. He looked exactly the kind of the player India needed- a composed middle order batsman who was handy with the ball. Unfortunately in the final, India collapsed at the cusp of making the final push and lost the match. He was the sixth wicket to depart after scoring a brisk 24 with 45 to get in 42 balls. He didn’t disappoint in the series. He contributed some handy runs and was the joint highest wicket taker, earning him the man of the series. He also pinned the blame of the loss on himself, further endearing himself to me and my cricket follower brethren. He would later become a footnote along with the Gyanendra Pandeys of the 1990s, disappearing into international cricketing obscurity after a couple of disappointing outings in the subsequent series. The lasting image of the 1990s was that of a team which would find new ways to lose when the push came to shove in an ODI series. This would last well into Ganguly’s celebrated time where India won only 1 out of the 14 finals it took part in. Even in the VB series when India challenged Australia for majority of the tournament, it only had one victory to show from three close matches. These are broad brushstrokes no doubt, but it was more than a decade of unshakeable, lingering disappointment. A by- product of India’s inability to close out higher targets was that the bulk of the blame (of him not being a clutch player) would be pointed in the direction of Sachin Tendulkar, an opening batsman, who, by the virtue of his batting position would be mostly out by the time the last act of the match unfolded. It is too much to expect an opening batsman to carry the bat and finish the job given that the best opening batsmen, Tendulkar included, are not out in less than 15% of the innings while chasing. On the other hand, the best middle order batsmen stay unbeaten in a chase 25- 35% of the time. What India longed for was a finisher in the mould of Miandad or Bevan- someone who could shepherd the chase in the evening and take the team home.

The thrill of the chase

Bevan, the finisher par extraordinaire and template setter in ODI cricket. Image source: 4

One of the most valued skills in the one- day game (recently, in the T20 game as well) is the role of a finisher. This is not to say that it is undervalued in the test format or that the role of the characters in the earlier acts of the game is any lesser, be it while batting or bowling. The finisher grapples with two major problems in any given match. One, he is limited to the situation that he is dealt with in terms of support from his batting partners. A top order batsman usually has the assurance of at least a couple of batsmen after his position. The finisher on the other hand might be forced to play the role of both an accumulator and aggressor. Two, he is also limited by the number of balls remaining in order to overcome the target, often under duress. This has a special significance in the way the different formats are played. In the test format, the constraint of balls remaining in the context of a fourth innings victory target is very rare. Conversely, the threat of a steep target is real in every match where the team chases in ODIs. The finisher, therefore, needs to have a very good grasp of the interpretation of his role- it could be to bide his time & damage limitation when the top order fails, it could be partaking in a final flourish the moment you step into the action in a match which is on the tenterhooks or it could even be in maintaining a steady tempo and motor along while the team collects a victory from a tricky situation. In any case, the finisher should, by default, possess the quality of getting the pulse of the game, make the defining contribution and deliver the game’s denouement in the final act, often under lights. Therefore, by definition, the finisher should count on composure under pressure as his strongest suit.

The baseline

In order to understand and examine India’s chasing worries, it is important to look at it from the perspective of the baseline across the world at the time. The average ODI batsman has found it easier to bat with each passing decade, with the batting average increasing to 29 runs at a strike rate of 80. There are subtle differences in the way an average batsman performed while batting first vis -à- vis batting second. Keeping this in mind as our baseline, let us proceed to dissect India’s performance from different eras to examine whether India had an affinity to chase a target. The figure below contains data of India’s ODI prowess over the years- the fields are pretty self-explanatory. The present top 8 in test cricket is the composition of the top 8 of the figure on the right. I know that I will be copping a fair share of criticism for this choice. Some may say labelling SL amongst the top 8 in the 1970s is unfair and me ignoring the Zimbabwe sides of the early 80s & straddling the millennium is not a good idea. I also concede that present form wise, a couple of test biggies may not deserve their place. In my defence, I chose the cop out as I did not want to check for different teams across eras and also that these data points are in addition to the entire playing field, not instead of. To put it another way, top 8 represents a slightly tougher than average playing field across eras.

Plots of India’s W/L record against the opposition with every passing decade. India have improved as a team recently.

It is a very fair observation that India were one of the very poor sides in ODIs in the 1970s. They played only a handful of matches, winning less than one in five matches played. They were especially poor against the “top” teams while chasing and did not manage to win a single match during the decade. As India played more matches over the years, India’s W/L ratio improved with these similar trends across decades:

• The W/L overall increases steadily with time against all opposition. The trend repeats itself for the top 8, albeit at a lower level, which implies that India performed worse against top opposition when compared to the baseline. This observation can deduced from an educated guess and is not exactly rocket science.
• India has shown an affinity for the chase over the ages. The W/L ratio is better for chasing when compared to batting first, even against top 8 opposition. The only counter example is in the 1970s where India failed to win a single match while chasing against a top team. Here too, across the ages, India has a poorer record against the top 8. The data suggests that India won more matches while chasing (even in the worst decade namely- 1990s), thus contradicting the hypothesis. How did this happen? We need to relook the data in order to reexamine our premise.
• The point of inflexion (upon merely eyeballing the figures) is around the 2000s where India nearly won as many matches as they lost against the top 8. They were also on the right side of 1 while chasing against top teams.

A closer look at India’s recent ODI record. The statistics from the 2000-04 era are worse compared to the 1990s.

 Proceeding to split hairs from the period of the 2000s across smaller eras of 5 years (using the data of the 1990s as our baseline), the statistics are more revealing. India’s record in the 2000-04 era is worse even compared to the dark era of the 1990s. India won more than they lost against all teams in the first 5 years of the new millennium. However, against top teams, they won only 7 times out of 17 matches- be it be while chasing or setting a target. The upturn was seen in the latter half of the noughties where India performed better against all opposition, including the top 8. 2005- 2009 was the first era where the Indian team won more than they lost, irrespective of the level of the opposition and the outcome of the toss.

The high score chase problem

Plots of India’s Win loss ratio against victory target. The majority of India’s victories in chases have come in low scoring matches.

How can we reconcile the above findings of India winning more matches while chasing with our initial hypothesis of India struggling in chases? It is instructive to examine the variation of India’s prowess with the size of the target score. I’ve split the data into 4 groups- sub 200, 201-250, 251-300 and 300 plus. Since the 1980s, India has performed close to or better than the ODI world while chasing. However, the bulk of Indian victories came in low pressure targets. Even in the 2000s, the moment the asking run rate at the start of the match went north of 5 per over (target of greater than 250), India won only 4 out of 9 matches played. The worst statistics was in the decade of the 90s (a clear drop in performance from the 1980s) against all opposition- India could barely win 3 out of 13 matches once the target was above 250. This is in line with our earlier observations and perceptions. Narrow the playing field further to the top 8 and the stats drop across the board but the trends remain; India regressed as a chasing side in the 1990s, making heavy weather of targets above 250- something that would continue till the first half of the noughties as well (during Ganguly’s era). The team has been robust in chasing down targets (W/L in excess of 1) even in the case of targets 250-300 since 2005 (Dravid’s and Dhoni’s era).

The par score transition

A nice way to capture the information is to get a sense of how the par score for India moved with every era. A par score by definition is a score which both sides have an even chance to win i.e. W/L= 1. Consider plotting the W/L ratio on the Y axis against increasing target runs on the X axis- the targets have been segmented into the same ranges as shown in the figures. As a first order approximation, the W/L ratio of a range has been assigned to the midpoint of a segment- for eg. in the 2000-04 era, I have assumed that a W/L ratio 0.83 can be assigned to the midpoint of 200-250 i.e. for a score of 225. In the case of the extremes (sub 200 and 300 plus targets), I have assigned the ratio to 25 runs off the terminal scores i.e. 175 and 325. A better approximation can be obtained if the intervals are narrowed further but an interval of 50 runs seems intuitive as it corresponds to one extra run scored per over for a 50 over ODI and also for the fact that there are enough matches in every interval.

Par score variations for the Indian team in the last 35 years. The team of 2000-04 has similar statistics compared to the team of the 1990s.

When this exercise is repeated over all eras from the 1980s, we get an indication of how the W/L ratio moves with an increasing target in a very approximate manner. Please note that until the 1990s, 60 overs a side was being played but this does not affect the par score (India played only 50 over ODIs since the late 1986) as only the target is utilized for this metric. Now, the values are interpolated to produce continuous variation of W/L for each target score, the score at which the W/L is 1 is the par score- i.e. each side has a 50-50 chance of winning the tie. Using the same principle in the case of the Indian team across the eras, we can find that the par score has continuously moved to the right (i.e., the Indian team has chased higher targets more comfortably over time). If the curve is zoomed for the region of W/L= 1, we obtain par scores for all the eras. This figure is even more revealing of how India has banished its former worries of a chase- the par score decreased from ~245 in the 80s to ~225 between 1990-2004 against top 8 opposition; over the last ten years, this figure has hovered at about ~275, a full 50 runs above the dark days of 1990-2004. The par score during the dark ages increased by 15 runs (still less than 250) against all opposition, as seen in the second figure, suggesting that the team was a minnow basher. During Sourav Ganguly’s captaincy, India lost 10 out of the 14 finals it took part in (3 no results), with 6 of the losses coming in chases (2 no results). The only victory came in the immortal Natwest triseries final which some reckon to be the match where India learnt to chase. In my opinion, this moment would come only later during the contentious Greg Chappell- Rahul Dravid era where the team won 17 matches on the trot while chasing.

Par score variations for the long term Indian captains in the last 15 years. Ganguly’s record is clearly the worst against top 8 teams suggesting that his team was a minnow basher.

 The puffed up chest, collar up attitude  has clearly helped Sourav Ganguly’s perception as a leader of men; it is another matter that the statistics show otherwise. Ganguly’s team were minnow bashers, as seen by their extraordinarily poor record while chasing (par score ~210 against top 8 opposition). No doubt, the warm afterglow of good showings in ICC tournaments and an iconic final chase help his cause and fan the supporters’ opinion about his impact, including mine. But the fact remains that few isolated moments aside, he had the worst win loss record ever seen by an Indian ODI team in the last 35 years. Rahul Dravid’s extraordinary chasing record is pockmarked by his team’s failings in setting a target with the 2007 World cup exit being a case in point. Plus, there is the small matter of the tumultuous Greg Chappell era along with Dravid’s not so confident body language that counts against his time. Dhoni, on the other hand, has a stellar record whichever way you look at it. A fantastic record against the top teams, good showings in the major tournaments and his era accounts for 6 of the 11 series (at least 3 matches in a series) whitewashes inflicted by the Indian team since the 1970s. One only can wonder how Dhoni would have performed with a bowling attack capable of defending a low score. The ODI team of the 1980s was the first good Indian side which also performed well in the multi-nation events (especially 1983-1987). But the Indian team in the last decade is in another league considering its much better performance overall.

The prestige

How did a team which was incapable of surmounting a par score of ~225 suddenly change its character at the flick of a switch in 2005? In the ODI format till the year 2005 (when Bevan owned the copyright to the art of the chase), out of the top 50 batsmen in chases ordered by batting average, only 5 were Indians. Most importantly, only 2 Indian middle order batsmen averaged above 35 out of the 24 in the world (min. 1000 runs) till then. It was no wonder that India was behind the curve when it came to chasing. On the other hand, after 1 Jan 2005, 5 out of the top 20 middle order batsman who have scored at least 1000 runs in chases are Indians. Additionally, 9 out of the top 12 Indian batsmen (min 1000 runs, ordered by average) have played in the last 10 years but only 2 of them stand out- Kohli and Dhoni. The only two batsmen who are survivors from the renaissance era are Raina and Dhoni. Kohli has a superior record to both of them but he came into the picture only in the last 5 years. Of the 2, Dhoni averages a full 13 runs higher than Raina over the same period and is equally effective in the first innings as well (unlike Kohli). Dhoni, the architect of many a successful chase, is the single most important reason for India’s improved fortunes while chasing with a direct correlation existing right from his entry. While the Indian fans might credit poster boy Yuvraj Singh for a hand in the revival but he appears far below in the chasing averages (below Azhar, Rohit Sharma and Dravid) and the fact that he is 29^th on the list of middle order batsmen who have scored 1000 runs while chasing since 2000 does not make for pretty viewing. The data suggests that while Kohli and Dhoni are peerless, Raina has just about made the cut averaging 40 while chasing.

The defining image of last decade of Indian cricket. Image source: 5

If Rahul Dravid was credited with giving the team an extra batsman (it is another matter than India still did not overcome its chasing jinx even with the extra resource as seen earlier) by donning the keeper’s gloves, due credit must be given to Dhoni who has been the only all-rounder in the team in the truest sense (capable of holding his place as a batsman as well as a keeper). Add to it the significant burden of captaincy and a good showing in the major tournaments, his impact is substantial. The most significant record that Dhoni possesses is out of the 40 not outs in chases, he has lost a match only once. Dhoni has been the bulwark of the team, playing the role of a finisher with élan for more than a decade. However, the paeans sung in his praise are not commensurate with his contribution when compared to, say, Yuvraj Singh in his pomp. It is probably due to his blending into the background and unorthodox technique that he is not recognized as the fulcrum of the highly successful ODI dynasty over the last decade. It is also due to cognitive bias of an average cricket fan, something which also affected the perception of Sachin’s performances under pressure. Dhoni deserves every bit of adulation reserved hitherto only for Sachin Tendulkar. He should also be a shoo-in for the all time ODI team (BBC’s readers don’t seem to think so). Unlike the trailblazer Gilchrist, Dhoni can hold a candle to the best batsmen in his position. His oeuvre contains innings of all types which would make a middle order batsman worth his salt puff his chest out with pride- two spectacular Tunbridge Wellseque innings at Chennai, the bludgeoning at Gwalior which pushed the score to the stratosphere, the definitive clutch innings in the World cup final and batting with the tail to win a tense nail biter at Port of Spain. Despite his recent reassurance, the concluded World cup is likely to be Dhoni’s last and given his history, he is going to walk into the sunset with minimal fuss. As articulated in this piece with a reminder of India’s position in the dark ages (although the author omits Ganguly’s era in my opinion which was equally bad, if not worse, in chases), Dhoni provided a soothing balm to the generation scalded by inept chasing. It is time to reflect on his enormous contribution to the Indian ODI side and truly recognize his value to the India team in the last legs of his career. It is customary to go over the top and commemorate heroes in India by deification. Looking at his impact on Indian ODI cricket, it won’t be too much of a surprise if people build a temple in his name one day.

 Disclaimer: Some images used are not property of this blog. The copyright, if any, rests with the respective owners.