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

A World cup squad for the ages

The quadrennial cricketing extravaganza that is the Cricket World Cup begins in less than 48 hours when England take on South Africa. The sports pages of every news publication, online and offline are filled to the brim with stories about the players, squads and unforgettable moments of yesteryear. With excitement building up towards this grand, we decided to throw our hat into the ring with a fun exercise of our own—building a hypothetical all-time XI.

What would serve as a fair selection criteria that can be applied across the board to facilitate such an exercise in fandom? Firstly, only performances from the ODI World Cups will be considered. Secondly, the player should have played in at least 10 World Cup matches and 2 editions; this criteria is to ensure that players with a stellar showing in one tournament (for example, Shikhar Dhawan) don’t necessarily upstage players with longer, more consistent World Cup records. As a consequence of these two criteria, many players with stellar ODI records (thinking of you, Virat Kohli and Joel Garner) unfortunately miss out, but present-day players certainly have a chance to correct this in the future. The squad would nominally have 6 batsmen (2 of whom can serve as the 6^th bowler), 1 wicketkeeper-batsman, 4 bowlers and 1 all-rounder but there is scope for some flexibility. With this in place, let us move on to the players themselves.

Wicketkeeper-batsman

Four wicketkeepers have stellar World Cup records: Adam Gilchrist, Kumar Sangakkara, Brendan Taylor, and Brad Haddin. Both Gilchrist and Kumar Sangakkara have had longer and more productive careers compared to the other two—hence it is down to these two. Both are excellent glovemen and hence the debate between the two will come down to batting (see below).

Top order (1-3)

One name automatically makes the list: Sachin Tendulkar. Who can argue with the batting pitamaha’s overall record and a stellar showing in three world cups? The identity of the other two players will no doubt cause much deliberation. Will it be his illustrious batting partner, Sourav Ganguly? Or explosive southpaws such as Adam Gilchrist or Sanath Jayasuriya? We then looked at players who married consistency with strike rate at the top, leading to 4 other contenders—Mark Waugh, Herschelle Gibbs, Matthew Hayden, and Tillakaratne Dilshan. Despite Dilshan’s edge as a part-time bowler, the fact that his best performances came against the “lesser” teams put him out of contention. With little to choose between the other three, we chose Matthew Hayden for his left-handedness and higher strike rate.  For the number 3 slot, Kumar Sangakkara’s consistency was hard to overlook and he easily towers over Ponting, Kallis, and Lara. A case could be made for playing both Gilchrist and Sangakkara but Hayden’s advantage (~+15 average) won the trade-off against Gilchrist’s stats (~+5 strike rate). Besides, we have packed the side with plenty of firepower in the middle order.

Hayden: 22 matches, 987 runs @51.94 avg. and 92.93 SR

Tendulkar: 45 matches, 2278 runs @ 56.95 avg. and 88.98 SR

Sangakkara: 37 matches, 1532 runs @ 56.74 avg. and 86.55 SR, 41 catches and 13 stumpings

Middle order (4-6)

As was the case in the top order, one more name automatically makes the list at number 4: Viv Richards; his handy bowling and fielding complemented his destructive batting well. The following act is a recent-day player who probably was the closest to Richards in his pomp—A B de Villiers. The number 6 and 7 candidates are some of the hardest to fill—is it better to pick someone like Javed Miandad, or Steve Waugh, who can marshal the lower order and bring in the big hits when necessary? Ultimately, we went with flexibility and power as the top 5 have enough batting ability and consistency to stave off even the most hostile bowling attack.

Viv Richards: 23 matches, 1013 runs @ 63.31 avg. and 85.05 SR

A B de Villiers: 23 matches, 1207 runs @ 63.52 avg. and 117.29 SR

All-rounders (6-7)

There are only 4 players under consideration—Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Yuvraj Singh, and Lance Klusener. Imran Khan has an outstanding bowling record but his batting is less than stellar. Following Viv Richards and A B de Villiers is already a difficult task and his ~66 SR would be out of place, even if it were to be “inflation-adjusted”; Lance Klusener has an amazing batting and bowling record in the World Cups and he would totally fit in in today’s T20-fuelled era; Yuvraj Singh is more a part-time bowler who had one good World Cup bowling-wise. Kapil Dev’s World Cup bowling record is merely “average” by his own lofty standards but his batting takes the cake—who can forget his immortal 175* against Zimbabwe? In the end, it is a very tough call between Kapil Dev and Imran Khan but considering that the top 5 are very consistent, we went with batting power over bowling chops. Kapil, Klusener, Richards, and Tendulkar can more than capably bowl the 5^th bowler quota.

Lance Klusener: 14 matches, 372 runs @ 124 avg. and 121. 17 SR; 22 wickets @ 22.13 avg.

Kapil Dev: 26 matches, 669 runs @ 37.16 avg. and 115.14 SR; 28 wickets @ 31.85 avg.

Fast bowlers

For the fast men who will take the new ball, it is hard to look beyond two legends of the game—one known for unerring and nagging consistency, and the other, the sultan of swing. Yes, we are referring to Glenn McGrath and Wasim Akram. Unsurprisingly, they have the highest number of wickets in the World Cups (fast bowlers only). Other capable candidates such as Chaminda Vaas, Zaheer Khan, Lasith Malinga, Brett Lee, and Shane Bond miss out due to the illustrious careers of these two new ball schemers.

Wasim Akram: 38 matches, 55 wickets @ 23.83 avg.

Glenn McGrath: 39 matches, 71 wickets @18.19 avg.

Spinners

Here too, it is difficult to look beyond the two champion spinners of the game—Muttiah Muralitharan and Shane Warne. Though Warne has played only in two World Cups, his overall record pips him to the final bowling slot ahead of Vettori, Hogg, and Kumble.

Muttiah Muralitharan: 40 matches, 68 wickets @ 19.63 avg.

Shane Warne: 17 matches, 32 wickets @ 19.50 avg.

 

Squad balance and captaincy

Overall, the squad has it all—consistency at the top and middle, explosive power in the middle order, left-right combinations galore, a bowling quiver full of all types of arrows, lower-order batting in Akram and Warne, and even comic value in two genuine number 11s. Who will be the captain? Imran Khan would have been an obvious choice had he made it, but since we’re picking the captain after making the 11, we would pick Kapil Dev. Kapil Dev was even more crucial to India in 1983 than what Imran was to Pakistan in 1992, and he transformed a bunch of no-hopers to world champions against all odds through a mix of self-belief, inspiration, and leading from the front. Imran, on the other hand had an excellent bowling unit and decent batsmen coming up the ranks. For this reason, Kapil paaji da jawaab nahin. The cerebral Sangakkara will serve as his able deputy.

All time World-cup 11: Matthew Hayden, Sachin Tendulkar, Kumar Sangakkara (wk & vc), Viv Richards, AB de Villiers, Lance Klusener, Kapil Dev (c), Wasim Akram, Shane Warne, Muttiah Muralitharn, Glenn McGrath

David vs Goliath at the World Cup

There is something captivating about following the fortunes of and rooting for an underdog, especially against a heavyweight or “establishment” opponent. Think Goran Ivanisevic vs rest of the world at Wimbledon; or the Miracle on Ice in the 1980 Olympics; and most famously, Leicester City winning the 38-game long 2016 English Premier League—not just a deep run into a cup-based tournament, mind you. And sometimes, underdog victories can create seismic events that can change the landscape of a sport. India, comfortably the worst ODI team (only 12 wins in 40 matches and 1 win in the World Cup prior to 1983) among the test teams back then, won against the almighty West Indies and shifted the centre of cricketing gravity eastwards. Similarly, Bangladesh’s and Ireland’s victories against fancied India and Pakistan, leading to the exits of the crowd-puller teams, made the authorities reconsider the format of the World Cup itself.

In the 2019 World Cup, there will be one such team that every neutral will be cheering for: Afghanistan. They almost didn’t make it and it was a combination of last-minute heroics and other favourable results that helped them qualify. No doubt, this plucky team’s rise from the ICC World Cricket League Division 5 in 2008, with minimal resources and no proper first-class structure, is inspirational to one and all.  Fans will be counting on Afghanistan to make a couple of high-profile scalps in the tournament and add the element of surprise. But what makes these teams perform against the more established teams and deliver a telling blow? No doubt passion and self-belief is essential; but does this happen due to a great individual performance? Or due to significant contributions from the entire team? Or is it something else? In order to answer this question, let us proceed to examine some famous World Cup matches in which an associate team famously beat a test team, upsetting the applecart to various degrees.

England vs Ireland, World Cup 2011

It is an understatement to say that England and Ireland have some history—much like how it is to say that Leonardo da Vinci was a painter. Brexit may have exposed the thorny question about Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland border, but cricket has already achieved what politics couldn’t—the Ireland cricket team represents all of Ireland. Ireland got their ODI status only in 2007 and lean heavily on English cricketing infrastructure; so no one expected them to defeat “big brother”. Batting first, England amassed a lofty (for the time) 328 at the Chinnaswamy stadium; hardly anyone gave Ireland a chance against England, leave alone that this would have been the highest ever successful World cup chase. The game seemed to be going to script around the halfway stage of the chase when Ireland were tottering at 111/ 5. Then in the batting powerplay, a pink-haired Kevin O’Brien took centre stage along with Alex Cusack and ransacked 62 runs, changing the complexion of the match. Going into the final 10 overs, Ireland needed 65 runs with 5 wickets in hand. Incredibly, O’Brien ended up scoring the-then fastest World Cup hundred; last minute-drama was averted by the 4-wicket hero John Mooney scoring the winning boundary. This defeat derailed England’s momentum, who started limping thereafter—with close matches against South Africa, Bangladesh, and West Indies—and would be put out of their misery by Sri Lanka in the quarterfinal.

Bangladesh vs Pakistan, World Cup 1999

The Bangla tigers were the new boys on the block after they had qualified through the ICC Qualifier in 1997. And it looked like they would struggle in the tournament—they hadn’t crossed the 200 barrier even against the fellow associate team, Scotland. Pakistan was the form team in the group stage which had won all its matches. Facing a bowling lineup of Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Saqlain, Azhar Mahmood and Afridi, Bangladesh slumped to 223/9. Chasing this modest score, Pakistan were incredibly 42/5—some of this damage self-inflicted. The lower order provided some resistance but the Bangladesh bowlers kept chipping away and the final wicket (run-out) encapsulated the Pakistani performance. However, Pakistan didn’t lose much as they had already taken maximum points to the Super 6 stage and would make the final. The Bangladesh team exited the tournament with their head held high, having pressed the case for Test status, which would be granted to them the following year.

Kenya vs West Indies, World Cup 1996

First-timers Kenya had one professional cricketer in Steve Tikolo (the rest were all amateurs). So when they took on two-time former champions West Indies in the group stage, the consensus was that this match would finish early. It did, but not in the way the experts had envisioned. Batting first, Kenya struggled to post a competitive total; the highest scorer for the Kenyans was not one among the eleven—extras. A target of 167 looked like a walk in the park—or at least, that was the way Brian Lara batted. At 22 for 2, there was no cause for alarm but after several near misses, Lara edged the ball to the normally butter-fingered, portly wicket-keeper Tariq Iqbal, who miraculously hung on to the ball. Bowling gentle offspin, Maurice Odumbe then broke the back of the West Indies middle order, returning figures of 10-3-15-3. After the West Indies were bowled out for 93, Kenya had famously won their first official ODI match (4^th time an associate team had beaten a test team in ODIs). The West Indies picked themselves up, and after dusting themselves, recovered to beat Australia to qualify, and then fell to the same team in the semis. The Kenyans regressed to the mean in their next match—they conceded a world-record 398 against Sri Lanka and exited the tournament.

Zimbabwe vs Australia, World Cup 1983

The Zimbabwe team had reached English shores through rather unconventional means—they not only borrowed training methods from other sports, but also raised money to reach the event through side hustles and sales—and were facing an Australian team on the way down. Still, they were struggling at 94/5 when Duncan Fletcher (yes, the same person who coached India a few years ago) came in and stitched a couple of big partnerships to post a competitive 239. He wasn’t done yet—with the ball, he took the first four wickets to fall. The match got closer at the end but Zimbabwe’s athletic fielding kicked in and closed the game out. The Zimbabweans were not done yet—in a later match, they reduced India to 17/5 before Kapil Dev famously scored 175 at Tunbridge Wells to turn the side. As for the Australians, they struggled in the group stage and crashed out of the tournament.

Viewing these famous matches through the lens of hindsight, it is a combination of a couple of brilliant performances and good fortunes that bridged the gap and enabled the underdog team to overcome their much-fancied rival in the tournament. In some cases, it was merely a slap on the wrist team but in others, it ended up derailing the tournament for the test team. In either case, it was a much deserved day in the sun for the underdog, who went on to achieve greater things in the days to come.

 

 

Team balance crucial ahead of World Cup challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ODI men who could do it all

Yuvraj Singh, the pie chucker who came up trumps in the 2011 World Cup. Image source: 1.

“You will matter when it matters the most”

These were the very words which served as Yuvraj Singh’s inspiration during the 2011 World Cup. When the squad was announced a month in advance of the tournament, there were a few surprises in store. For one, Rohit Sharma was not picked in the squad, and a case could be made for the team being one batsman short; two, the bowling seemed a bit lightweight going into the tournament with only one experienced spinner.

The then chairman of selectors, Kris Srikkanth, exuded confidence in this team: “Don’t forget that you are playing in India. The spinners probably play a very major role on the turning wickets. I am confident that the kind of balance we have, the kind of batting line-up we have, this team led by Dhoni will do the job for us”. With the World cup being held in the subcontinent, his panel was confident about the part-time options offered by Sehwag, Raina, Yusuf Pathan and Yuvraj.

In the first match, our man Yuvraj Singh didn’t have much to do. Sehwag’s belligerence had put the match out of Bangladesh’s reach, and after safely pouching Tamim Iqbal, he wheeled in his overs. Over the next four matches, he would stroke 3 fifties and nab seven wickets. The doubts still lingered though—the wickets had come against Ireland and Netherlands. How would he hold up against the bigger tests that lay waiting for him deeper in the tournament?

In the remaining four matches, he would chip in with defining contributions in all four. A hundred against West Indies, anchoring a tight chase against the Aussies, and staying on the inevitable victory lap on what was the biggest stage of them all. That was not all; he would take 2 wickets in each of these matches as well. Four Man of the Match awards in a single World Cup (third after Aravinda de Silva and Lance Klusener). 362 runs @90 and 15 wickets @25. Easily the man of the tournament. What made this even more special was that he had produced these performances with the yet-to-be-discovered devil of germ-cell cancer residing inside him. Somehow, this Indian team had held up thanks to the balance brought by this man.

Not bad for a bowler who was derisively labelled as “pie chucker” and “left-arm filth”, eh?

But speaking about his bowling career as a whole, it is fair to say that Yuvraj Singh wasn’t a thoroughbred all-rounder for India in ODIs. While no one doubts his batting pedigree and claims to a spot in the hypothetical all-time India ODI side, he bowled in only ~50% of his matches, averaging slightly over 5 overs per match—with most of his overs being bowled from a position of 6 and above. These statistics would firmly place him in the category of part-time bowler. His overall bowling average isn’t earth shattering stuff (like the 2011 WC stats) as well.

But over the course of the history of the ODI, who were the cricketers that could regularly chip in in both innings? What are some of the characteristics that we can expect out of a “good” ODI all-rounder? Let’s take a detailed look. For the purposes of this article, we will be looking at players who served as true all-rounders—contributing with both bat and ball—thus bringing a multitude of skills and team balance into the mix.

The ODI is different from the test match format in some ways. For starters, each team bats only once. But another crucial difference is the participation of the lower order in batting. While bowlers are expected to bat in tests, given the fact that the average ODI produces ~7 wickets per innings, the all-rounders usually occur a bit higher in the batting order. Additionally, teams tend to pick bits-and-pieces cricketers (like Chris Harris) in ODIs—as opposed to specialist bowlers and batsmen—due to the fact that ODIs can be won by run containment. Therefore, ODI all-rounders are a grade below their test counterparts (like Sobers, Miller, Imran, Botham etc.)—who can command a specialist place for either skill.

Right, it is time for some cutoffs.  We’ll be largely looking at all-rounders who featured in 100 batting and bowling innings, bowled in at least 80% of the matches, nabbed 100 wickets, and have an batting minus bowling average of -5 (or better). The criteria will also be relaxed slightly to allow a few exceptions who fell short in 1 or 2 criteria. This exercise gives us our first glimpse of the magnificent dozen: Kallis, Klusener, Flintoff, Watson, Angelo, Kapil, Cairns, Shakib, Imran, Razzaq, Greg Chappell and Symmonds. Unfortunately, we had to leave out several other players such as Viv Richards, the Waughs, Cronje, Hooper, Gayle, Jayasuriya, Harris, Botham and others as they fell short on more counts.

The batting

Real-time variation of batting average with each match

The batting average is often used as a measure of excellence of a batsman. Of the twelve players, five are in the 40s range (Chappell, Kallis, Klusener, Angelo and Watson), followed by Symmonds, Flintoff, Shakib and Imran in the 30s range. Of this lot, only Kapil Dev’s batting average is much lesser than the rest. However, we must also remember that the batting average is dependent on the position at which the batsman batted. Coming in later not only limits the opportunities to bat with more established batsmen, but also robs you of an opportunity to build an innings (and raise his average). Note that these are real-time figures and hence “streakiness” is more common in the early career as the late career deviations are cushioned by the total number of matches. Hence, the real-time data has been shown after 10 data points only (but duly accounted for).

The average batting position (ABaP) is the average of all the batting positions batted at by the respective player, taking into account all the innings he has batted in. A lower number indicates that the batsman has batted mostly higher up the order. Both the opening positions have been given a value of 2 as they are equally spaced from 3 compared to the number 4 batsman. The above table is in line with the relationship between batting position and average; one can see that as players with the highest averages generally have lower career ABaPs, and Kapil’s lower batting average has to be seen in this context. A note of caution though—though ABaP numbers are generally indicative, since it is an average, it can throw up numbers which may not correspond with a player’s most popular position (we’ll see at least one such example shortly).

Batting position distribution for different players

The batting position distribution also roughly follows the ABaP values, showing that ABaP is a good first-cut approximation for the batting opportunities provided to the batsman throughout his career. However, we must also note two glaring exceptions—Watson and Klusener. The former batted mostly in the top order, but his few innings in the lower middle order have dragged his ABaP to ~3.5. The latter is a work of art—he has batted all across the order (most frequently at 8); in spite of this, he managed a batting average north of 40. But how did these players move across the batting order over the course of their careers?

Real-time average batting position variation with each innings

Plotting the real-time variation of the Average batting position is one way to track this movement. And keeping track of this does reveal valuable insight: by and large, players have been steady across the batting order (Flintoff) or have been shifted around a bit (Shakib). Coming to the outliers, Klusener’s real time variation shows a major shuffling around the order before settling in the lower-middle order; Watson, and to a lesser extent Imran, moved higher up the order as their careers progressed.

The bowling

The bowling analogue of the batting average is the bowling average. Like its batting counterpart, it is measured in runs (conceded) per dismissal, albeit with the better players showing lower values. Additionally, the bowling average has information about both the economy rate (runs conceded per over) and the bowling strike rate (balls per wicket). Good bowlers typically have values south of 30.

Real-time bowling average variation with each match

The career progression of bowling average shows major upheaval in the case of Kallis and Watson—they needed in excess of 50 matches to settle close to their end-career levels. Also, barring Symmonds and Razzaq, the players largely became better bowlers as their careers unfolded. Flintoff, Kapil and Imran had the stand-out bowling averages of this pack. But what about its relationship with the bowling order?

The Average Bowling position (ABoP), like its batting counterpart, gives an indication of the most frequent bowling position of the players. Though, it must be noted that the bowling order is a lot more fluid compared to the batting order as bowlers can bowl the early over but then finish their quota only at the very end of the innings. But due to the absence of overall ball-by-ball data throughout the history of the ODI, this is the best information available.

Only Imran and Kapil were frontline fast bowling options. Kallis, like his test role, was largely a support seamer. The ABoP also shows the favoured type of all-rounder in ODIs—the cricketers who can do a bit of batting and some medium pace bowling—and the majority belong to this category. Shakib and Symmonds (who sometimes also bowled medium pace) are the spin bowling all-rounders in this otherwise medium pace-heavy contingent.

Bowling position distribution for each player

The bowling position distribution unearths additional detail to the ABoP data. As explained earlier, all these players bowled in at least 80% of their matches (with Symmonds and Matthews being the least). But Kapil Dev’s frontline status is in a different league—he was the runaway leader of the attack in ~90% of his matches, unlike any other player; perhaps, this explains his lower than expected batting average. The distribution also reveals that there are additional levels to middle over bowlers—Cairns, Flintoff and Razzaq were more preferred earlier than, say, Watson, Klusener or Chappell.

Real-time bowling position variation with each innings

The real-time ABoP shows much lesser movement when compared to the batting order. Then again, it must be remembered that the desired data which would resolve this is missing. From the above charts, it looks like players largely stuck to their respective roles. Although, it must be noted that the South Africans normally bowled alongside Donald and Pollock (as did Watson with Lee and co.), which might somewhat explain their lowly ABoPs.

Real-time overs per match for each player

The bowling load shouldered by the players can be gleaned from the overs bowled per match data. Another note of caution here: ODIs, especially from the earlier years, tended to be more than 50 overs long, and players like Imran and Kapil bowled more than 10 overs in many matches. Kapil, Imran, Klusener and Shakib can be classified as full-time bowlers; Kallis and Flintoff took greater bowling responsibilities for some time as their careers progressed; the others mostly hover around 5-6 overs mark, showing that Yuvraj Singh’s 5 OPM is quite reasonable, considering that he bowled in much fewer than 80% of his matches.

Real-time balls per wicket for each player

Another way to spot the wicket taking bowlers is to plot the bowling strike rate (balls per wicket). Of course, in the ODIs the economy rate is also important but this metric does indicate the players who were the better wicket takers among the lot. Cairns and Flintoff were fantastic wicket takers all through their careers (Razzaq in his first 100 matches as well). Also, the improvement shown by Watson, Chappell and Kallis is remarkable.

Tying it all together

Now for the last bit of analysis to look at their all-round contributions. The net contribution of an all-rounder can be measured in terms of the difference in levels of batting and bowling averages. Keeping in mind the importance of the batting position, it can give an indication of the net contribution to the team.

Real-time average difference for each player

Kallis, Klusener, Flintoff, Watson and Imran had a very healthy average difference for large parts of their ODI career. But spare a thought for Greg Chappell—he had spectacular numbers until the fall near the end of his ODI career. In the current lot, Shakib and Angelo Matthews have shown world-class numbers in this respect. Also, it must be noted that almost every player’s values fluctuated wildly in the first 50 matches; perhaps it takes ~50 matches for both sets of statistics to stabilize.

Real-time average ratio for each player

Another, not-so-common way of expressing the same information is to through a ratio of the averages. A ratio yields a dimensionless number, as opposed to the runs/wicket currency of the earlier metric; this latter measure favours the better bowlers due to the bowling average appearing in the denominator. Only Kallis and Klusener come close to the 1.5 mark, although others like Watson, Chappell and Imran have touched it at various points of their career.

The last question left to answer would be the classification of these wonderful multi-skilled men. Is there any easy way to label these players?

Classification of ODI allrounders

One easy way to visualize this data is to plot the ABaP against the ABoP to reveal the buckets which neatly cluster together in recognizable patterns. Using the data from earlier, we can proceed to label them accordingly. In the above plot, the lower right quadrant has top order batsmen who are useful bowling options; the top right quadrant has late order muscle and middle overs specialists; the top left quadrant contains strike bowlers and lower order batsmen. There are three out-of-place players in this above chart—Razzaq faded away as a wicket-taking force towards the end of his career, Angelo Matthews isn’t as much of a regular bowler nowadays, and Shakib is a regular bowler.

But more incredibly, there is no player in the lower left quadrant—a top order batsman and a strike bowler (someone like Neil Johnson, but who had a much longer career). Perhaps, considering the fact that Shakib is a lead bowler for Bangladesh, and a spinner (and hence comes 2 bowlers later), his real position should be in the empty quadrant with an effective bowling position of ~2, which shows his overall stature in the game today. Additionally, he’s easily the game’s best ever spin-bowling all-rounder, and a lone representative in the high table of ODI all-rounders, which has been traditionally dominated by the faster men.

What about the rest of the current crop? Stokes, Pandya, Ali have a long way to go in their young careers; Faulkner needs to find a way to get selected; others like Kane Williamson are more of the batsmen who can bowl well category.

If we had to pick one, and only one, it would have to be a player who didn’t have quite the happy ending to a World tournament à la Yuvraj Singh. Yes, we are talking about Lance Klusener—the tragic hero of the 1999 World Cup. Blessed with belligerent batting to go along with his canny bowling, he would have easily been the top of the money heap in today’s age of franchise T20 competitions.

Disclaimer: An image used in this article is not part of this blog. It has been used for representational purposes only. The copyright, if any, solely rests with the respective holders.

 

Setting the agenda

In the air: Sourav Ganguly spinning the coin at the toss between India and Australia in 2003. Image source: 1.

“It is tails” said Ranjan Madugalle, the match referee, on 23^rd March 2003, to resounding cheers from the Jo’burg crowd. Sourav Ganguly now had the chance to decide what the Indian team should be doing after winning the toss against the Australians in the World cup final.

The same Indian team had folded for 125 against the Aussies in the group stage match, and there was some effigy burning; the same Aussies, who had crushed every opponent so far, had not been beaten in a World Cup fixture since their loss to Pakistan in a group stage match back in 1999.

There was some context to India’s batting collapse in the earlier match—on the preceding tour to New Zealand, the much vaunted Indian batting lineup couldn’t muster more than 219 in over 11 international innings on severely underprepared pitches. Understandably, they were severely short of confidence when they landed on South African shores. On the upside, the Indian fast bowlers had a spring in their step after bowling on green tops.

After the debilitating loss against Australia, the Indian team turned a corner, won eight matches on the trot, and reached the final. Did they have a chance against the invincible Aussies?

“Sourav you’ve won the toss. What will you be doing?” boomed Michael Holding with his Jamaican accent.

Fans could barely hear “We’ll have a bowl” in the midst of the din, already having assumed that the result of winning the toss was a foregone conclusion. Wait, what did he just say?

“Why is that?” asked Holding, thrusting the microphone forward.

“Because it’s it’s a bit damp…. Uhhh it’s because of the rain in the morning. We’ll have a go at this first”.

This was like turkeys voting for Christmas, so to speak. Was the earlier result playing on his mind?

“So you’re hoping that your fast bowlers will get a bit of purchase on this surface and you’ll get a couple of early wickets?”

“I definitely think so if they can put the ball in the right place the way they’ve bowled… we’ll definitely get some purchase”.

Why did he have to think? All he had to say was “Bat”. One syllable. Was it so difficult to say?

“Ricky, would you have done anything different?” asked Holding to the Australian captain, who was barely able to conceal his delight.

“No, would’ve had a bat, actually. It’s always nice to bat in big games in finals I think so we would’ve had a bat”.

See! He was thinking straight. Why couldn’t Ganguly think more like him?

Sure, Ganguly might have had some grounds for bowling first; but, what did the numbers suggest, in the manner of successful chasing teams?

If scores of scarred Indian fans haven’t minimized the window by now, they would recall that India failed to chase 360 in the final. Back in 2003, 360 was an unassailable target. In an article on ESPNcricinfo in January, the metamorphosis of the ODI game has been captured in a snapshot: A first innings score of 300-324 guaranteed victory before 2001 (and this included 60 over games) 9 times out of 10; since 2013, the corresponding figure has slipped to less than 3 times out of 4. The par score has increased from ~225 to ~270 as well.

Defining era: Each time period has at least 250 matches.

These results aren’t surprising, considering the evolution of the ODI game. Like the previous article about chasing teams, if we were to demarcate ODIs into 9 eras, the increase in strike rate (runs/100 balls) for batsmen (1-7) follow a similar upward trend, with the latest era batsmen scoring at 30% higher rates (compared to ~65 in era 1).

However, there are various nuances across the batting order. In general, the effectiveness of an ODI batsman is determined by factors such as how fast one can score his runs (strike rate), his ability to not get dismissed (Not out%), and his propensity to score a big amount of runs. Like the last time, here too, we will be examining the trends of these factors before moving on to take a look at the top batsmen who were proficient in the first ODI innings.

Staying power: The variation of strike rate and not out% across eras

Ever since Martin Crowe’s team revolutionized ODI batting with Greatbatch’s fireworks at the top of the order in 1992, the role of the ODI opener has never been the same since. The strike rate of the opening batsmen (1-2) has steadily risen over the years, with the greatest bump happening in the era post-1992. The strike rates of no. 4 and no. 6 batsmen have taken a drastic upward turn in the latest era, probably due to the effect of fielding restrictions in the middle overs.

The Not Out% shows some unusual patterns; the probability of an opener staying not out is still miniscule, but batting later has its benefits. Of particular interest is the no. 4 (no. 5 as well) during the 2002-2004 era. Probably, teams were trying to emulate the Michael Bevan template of batting through to the end (observe the strike rate in the same era being lower than the opener or no. 6). Understandably, the NO%  is much lesser when compared to the chasing values (~20%) for middle order batsmen (4-6), since teams batting first have a different mandate (maximizing their resources) compared to while chasing (staying in touch with the required run rate, while conserving wickets).

Striking it big: Incidence of big scores in different eras, across the batting order.

The propensity of making big scores is a bit different as well. Batsmen batting in the top 4 have had the best chance to register a 50+ score (~1 in 4 innings). Due to increased strike rates, the batsmen at number 6 have had greater opportunities to chip in with big scores recently.

The occurrence of 100+ scores across the batting order shows some unusual trends; the percentage of innings resulting in a 100 increased till 02-04, decreased subsequently, and then rose sharply in the last 2-3 eras. In fact, the 13-16 era was the most productive in terms of individual 100 scores. No doubt, the tinkering of the fielding restrictions in the middle overs has helped some of the middle order batsmen to amass big scores.

The overall evolution of the ODI game can be deduced by observing the Batting Index benchmark (BI). For the uninitiated reader, it is a product of the batting average (runs/dismissal) and the strike rate (runs/100 balls), divided by 100. For a batsman, the ability to score more runs before getting dismissed, and in a lesser number of balls is highly prized. Since it is a multiplication product, a high BI value implies that the constituent factors are high as well.

Setting a benchmark: Variation of Batting Index (setting) across the batting order in different time periods

The progression of ODI batting can be observed by cursorily glancing through the BI values across the batting order in different eras. Batting was easier at numbers 3 & 4 in the first two eras, before the openers caught up in the post-Greatbatch eras. The numbers have been fairly stable amongst the top 6 overall, and have tailed off at number 7. The effect of four fielders in the middle overs is there to be seen in the latest era; numbers 3 and 4 have the highest BI values in the table.

Two different games: Variation of BI chasing(%) using setting target as a reference. Eg. BI chasing is 15% higher for 1&2 compared to BI setting between 71-84. (BI chasing-BI setting/BI setting)*100

A simple way to understand the differences in Batting indices while setting a target and chasing a target would be to compare the two. The above table shows the % variation of BI (chasing) with BI (setting) as a reference. The positive and negative differences are shown in green and red respectively. For instance, BI (chasing) was ~15% higher than the corresponding BI (setting value) for openers in the 71-84 era. Of late, BI (chasing) has taken a beating across the batting order.

From the statistics seen so far, we can conclude that batting first and batting second are two different ball games; the lower order batsmen (6-7) suffer comparatively while chasing. The opening batsmen influence have had a greater influence in the chase compared to batting first. Hence, for a chase, the top 5 batsmen influence it more often than not; and, while batting first, the top 6 influence most games.

In this article, the overall BI (batting positions 1 to 7) has been taken as the baseline. This may cause an under-representation lower order batsmen since their BI is not at the same level. However, a universal baseline is much easier to apply across the board and hence will be used in this analysis as well. Similar minimum run based cutoffs have been chosen (minimum 500 before era 3, and 750 runs for all eras post 1988) with respect to batsmen batting between positions 1-7 while setting a target in different eras.

Once the bar has been set, the identity top-20 batsmen by BI ratios (w.r.t the 1-7 BI setting baselines) can be easily found out independent of the match context. Since the BI is a temporally dynamic index, comparing different batsmen across eras is also taken care of to some extent.

Target setting champions in the first 3 ODI eras.

In the first two eras, Vivian Richards was the master blaster in the first innings. It is also worth recalling that he was top chasing batsman in these two eras as well. Other West Indian greats such as Haynes, Greenidge, and Lloyd are also in the top-20. All-rounders such as Imran Khan and Kapil Dev feature in this list, despite their low batting positions. In the second era, the Aussies dominate the table with Steve Waugh, Jones, Boon and Marsh. Other players who did well batting first were Zaheer Abbas, Gower, Lamb, and Inzamam. It can be seen that the top-10 has been dominated by middle order batsmen.

Target setting champions in the next 3 ODI eras.

Over the next three eras, opening batsmen started to feature a lot more in the higher positions: Lara, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Kirsten, Gilchrist, Jayasuriya, Mark Waugh—all registered good BI ratio values. Other ODI regulars such as Bevan, Ponting, Ranatunga, Aravinda de Silva, Kallis, Mohd. Yousuf are present as well. Pakistan’s Abdul Razzaq makes an appearance in the top 3 of era 6, despite him batting lower down the order.

Target setting champions in the last 3 ODI eras.

In the last three eras, the middle order batsmen have made a comeback: Dhoni, Hussey, de Villiers, Duminy, Pietersen, Sangakkara, Taylor and Yuvraj Singh. The presence of Ireland’s Paul Stirling amongst the familiar names is a big achievement.

Overall, the lists have been dominated by batsmen who have batted in the top 5 positions. The presence of Kapil Dev, Boucher, Razzaq, Imran Khan, Oram, Flintoff and Symmonds in the top-20 show that it is easier for a lower order batsman to make an impact while setting a target as compared to in the chase. Nevertheless, a small tweak to the index must be formulated to take care of the representation of the lower order batmen.

From the above tables, Viv Richards’ BI ratio of ~3.17 towers over everyone else. Many batsmen such as Tendulkar, Sehwag, Amla, de Villiers, and Abbas have crossed the 2.5 mark. It must also be noted that the spread of BI ratio is not the same across eras; for instance, the top batsman in era 1 has a BI ratio of ~3.17, but the corresponding top batsman in era 6 is only at ~1.99.

In order to take care of this, a BI ratio cutoff of 1.40 can be applied across the board. The choice of the 1.40 BI ratio benchmark is specific, as it narrows the list of elite batsmen to at least 8 players. This ratio of 1.40 represents a 40% better performance, vis-à-vis an average batsman (1-7), while setting a target.

How did these wonderful batsmen fare across different eras?

Players having a high level of BI (1.75 or 1.40) across multiple eras.

Only a few players have been able to consistently outperform the rest of the field across different eras; this can be highlighted by the number of times these players have featured multiple times in the BI ratio lists. Needless to say, some of the greatest ODI batsmen feature in this list of players who have crossed BI ratios of 1.75 and 1.40 in different eras.

In the above table, the player’s name, and his n^th appearance (in parenthesis) have been indicated at different eras. For example, Miandad made his 2^nd appearance at a chasing BI ratio>1.40 in the second era (84-89). It must also be noted that a player’s n^th appearance in the 1.75 column is not reported in the 1.40 column, even though it is obvious, but for one exception—Sachin Tendulkar. Tendulkar breached the 1.40 barrier in era 4, and remained above the 1.75 level (and 1.40) in the next 4 eras. No other player has been able to sustain that level of performance for 4 eras, leave alone 5. However, it must be remembered that the first era is 15 years long.

In the 1.40 list, many players such as Jayasuriya, Kallis, Lamb, Boon etc. have made their n^th appearance across in non-contiguous eras. And, only five players have breached the 1.40 level in more than 3 eras—Tendulkar, Dhoni, Ponting, Jayasuriya and Kallis. AB de Villiers and Amla are active players, and can make it into this elite list if they maintain their present form.

What about the teams then?

Setting the agenda: The countries with the most number of good target setters in each ODI era.

Across eras, only 8-18 batsmen have crossed the 1.40 BI ratio level, which indicates the exclusivity of the benchmark. In five eras, one team led the charts in terms of the stockpile of elite players; barring South Africa in the latest era, the top team with the highest number of high quality 1^st innings batting personnel has won international tournaments. Of particular interest is Australia’s stranglehold of champion first innings batsmen from 1994 to 2008.

So, could Ganguly have done things any differently in the 2003 World Cup final?

Australia, due to having fanstastic target setting batsmen, were the pre-eminent ODI team for five eras. India too, had equivalent resources while batting first between 1998-2001, but couldn’t keep up with the Aussie might in the next era. Wisden wasn’t wrong in its assessment that this team (without Shane Warne, mind you) would have beaten a Rest of World XI. And then there was the small matter of them being the champion chasing team as well.

Zaheer Khan might have been overexicted, and conceded 15 runs in the opening over; the two wickets that Ganguly was hoping for due to the purchase off the wicket never came until the 20^th over, when the Aussies were comfortable at 125/2; two formidable batsmen, in the form of Ponting and Martyn, familiar with the art of setting a target, stitched together a massive partnership.

That man Ponting would more than compensate for his sedate first 50 off 74 balls—by scoring his second 50 off his next 29 and finishing with 140 off 121, taking Australia to 359. The Indian bowling lineup which had bowled like a dream for most of the tournament were demolished into submission; Srinath, the elder statesman, conceded 87 runs in what was his last ODI game.

What if India had collapsed batting first, like in the group stage game?

While individual predictions about a specific match can’t be made (and this is what makes the sport fun), take a moment to consider this: against the Aussies in their pomp (1 Jan 1998 to 31 Dec 2008), India had the best winning record against them while batting first; they only won five out of 27 matches batting second (fifth). After Tendulkar’s twin assaults in desert storm^TM and desert storm reloaded^TM, India hadn’t won a single match chasing against Australia until late 2007. No wonder the CB series victory against Australia in 2008 was a watershed moment.

On this basis, India had a better chance to win the match if they had batted first. Sigh. If only…..

Disclaimer: Some images used in the article are not property of this blog and have been used for representational purposes only. The copyright, if any, rests with the respective owners.

 

 

Making a case for cricket worldwide: faster, higher, stronger

Recently, ICC’s chief executive, Dave Richardson, dropped hints about Cricket’s governing body making a decision regarding applying for an Olympic spot. The prospect of cricket at the Olympics has been a long and twisted saga—something that could easily be confused for a soap opera.

Cricket was penciled in as an event in the very first modern Olympic Games at Athens in 1896; it was listed in the original program but was later shelved due to an insufficient number of entries. Four years later in the 1900 Paris Olympics, only four teams entered the fray—Great Britain, Belgium, Holland, and the hosts, France. Belgium and Holland withdrew from the cricket competition after their co-hosting bids were turned down. Therefore, the final match was contested between the teams of the two nations across the English Channel, Great Britain and France. Great Britain won the 12-a-side match contested over two days; cricket never featured in the Olympic Games since.

The game of cricket has 105 full members from across the world. However, only 10 of these members are full members with “Test status”. Even though the ICC may claim that the game is followed by more than a billion fans, it is dependent on the subcontinental teams to do the heavy lifting. Puzzlingly, the playing field of the game’s marquee tournament—the ODI world cup—was shrunk to 10 teams after the latest edition in 2015. During a time when FIFA was open to a 48 team world cup, cricket’s decision to keep the minnows at the margins was widely decried. Understandably, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) labelled this reorganization as a retrograde step. At the same time, it called for T20 cricket to become an Olympic sport. T20, with its underdog friendly nature, was rightly labelled as the format to globalize the game by Sachin Tendulkar.

The earliest that cricket can feature again the in the Olympic Games is in 2024 through one of two methods. In the first, the host nation gets to make a case for the sports to be included in its Games—before the 2016 Rio opening ceremony, the organizing committee of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics nominated skateboarding, karate, surfing, sportsclimbing, and baseball/softball. Selection of a sport would require the host city to have a venue with a culture of the said sport, and this selection is not binding on future Games hosts. Meaning, if cricket makes the cut in 2024, it could be dropped in the very next edition.

The other route is the IOC path which involves significant funding, both at the ICC level and at the individual cricket board level. This is far more lucrative for the ICC as it would open up millions of dollars in government funding needed to establish infrastructure in each country. To give an example, cricket in China could get a 20 million USD boost if it were included in the Olympics; lower down the affiliate country road, government funding could lead to a significant spike in finances that is in several multiples of the ICC’s own influx. Needless to say, Olympic status would give the game a big marketing boost in several new countries as well. Then why did the ICC take so long mulling over its options?

There are many reasons as to why cricket took so long to mobilize popular opinion. For one, the English Cricket Board had an issue with the Summer Olympics clashing with its traditional cricketing calendar. The BCCI’s messy relationship with the ICC, and having to go through the IOA for approval is another matter altogether. Development of local infrastructure at a new country with no history of the game is going to be a hard sell; no bums on seats for an alien sport is not appealing to broadcasters as well. And what about the primacy of the World cup itself? Would the Olympics, another quadrennial tournament, supersede it?

Cricket is under threat from other popular sports who don’t have to contend with multiple formats. According to a recent article in The Cricket Monthly, cricket’s place in the global popularity stakes is quite fuzzy. Therefore, if the game of cricket is to survive and thrive, it needs to expand its horizons. The present system is broken with the smaller teams getting only a handful of fixtures thrown at them once in a while. How can an upcoming team improve itself when it cannot get the necessary oxygen of competitive fixtures to grow? This problem has been further exacerbated with the contraction of the World Cup.

It is instructive to note that football grappled with some of these problems before settling on its eventual format at the Olympics. FIFA, like the ICC, did not want the Olympics to rival the World Cup in prestige. However, the Olympic Games require the nations to send their strongest contingents. Meaning, it must involve the strongest players. How different would this be compared to the World T20 then?

Then there is the issue of the teams involved. Football has its own qualifying tournament, and takes 16 teams to contests in the Olympic Games. Who would be cricket’s teams? Would there be a quota from across the world? If it becomes another T20 tournament featuring 6-8 teams as Dave Richardson suggests, how would it take care of inclusion?

Fortunately, cricket doesn’t have to look beyond football’s own compromise. Since 1996, Olympic squads from the “stronger” UEFA and CONMEBOL associations can only have 3 over-23 players in their squad. Therefore, the strongest footballing nations typically have poor Olympic records; the African nations have duly benefitted from the exemption. In the case of cricket, the test playing nations could similarly send similar contingents of under-23 and a sprinkling of top players to compete with other teams who can send full strength squads; this would bridge the skills gap to some extent and give the newer teams a shot at winning a medal. Once the rest of the world catches up with the test playing nations, this could be reviewed once again.

As of now, the traditional cricketing nations have nothing to gain in terms of an Olympic medal as the game’s biggest and prestigious contests happen in Test matches and the ODI World cups. The Olympics should hence be pegged as a high visibility showcase with a commitment for initiation into cricket. This will no doubt go a long way in grabbing mainstream attention in new countries, and attract newer audiences.

 

 

 

Chasing blues

Meet the press: Dhoni answering questions in the captains’ press conference of WC2011. Image source:1.

“Till the full stop doesn’t come the sentence is not complete”

On the eve of the 2011 World Cup final against Sri Lanka, on April fool’s day, M S Dhoni metaphorically suggested that there was more to come from his team. Or did he? Was he prophetically implying the possibility of a thrilling punchline at the end of a half-completed quip, which promised much more than what had been the Indian World Cup campaign so far? Could he have been referring to his own personal form in the lead-up to this match – 20 innings at 26, strike rate of ~65 with no notable contribution in the World Cup?

He could have spouted the clichéd “Its not over until its over” to go along with his usual “Controlling the controllables” and “Bowling in the right areas”, but he didn’t. This quote, in cognisance of what unfolded in the chasi, typified the myth of Dhoni – India’s best chaser at the time. Along with the prescient (and apocryphal) “You just dropped the World cup”, it is one of the finest quotes with a sense of the cricketing occasion.  For India, it was a tryst with destiny.

Every cricket fan, who’s watched the game for a while, inherently understands what a crunch situation is in an ODI chase. I’m talking about the moment where the game lies in the balance, and can pivot to another direction at a moment’s notice. Often, our perception of players and the labels we bestow upon them is coloured by their performance in a handful of matches. Is there an objective way to measure a player’s ability to chase?

Any player, who is grappling with a chase, has to deal with two types of problems. One, the player is limited to the situation that he is dealt with, in terms of team support. There is nothing a batsman can do apart from getting on with his business after the bowlers have conceded 300+ or if his side have collapsed to 20 for 3. This is especially compounded lower down the order as there are lesser assurances of batting ability with each dismissal.  Two, the player is also limited by the number of balls remaining in order to achieve the target, often under pressure.

Every ODI batsman worth his salt must boast of several skills, ready to be deployed at a moment’s notice – may it be biding his time and seeing off the strike bowler; deftly rotating strike and keep motoring along; or partaking in a final flourish with the target in sight. All things considered, who were the best ODI batsmen in the chase? Richards? Miandad? Bevan? Kohli?

But can the ODI of today be considered in the same breath as ODIs from 30 years ago? Before the format became the primary breadwinner for cricket boards, it underwent a myriad of changes. 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). As a consequence of some of these factors, statistics from yesteryear would differ from the corresponding data from today (we’ll see more about this shortly). Hence, it is important to examine traditional cricketing ODI records in history’s context – as the ODI format evolved –  before proceeding to look at individual records.

Roll call: Number of ODI matches played in every calendar year since 1971. The orange arrows denote a World Cup year.

The number of ODI matches has varied widely from the 1 match (in 1971) to an all-time high of 191 (in 2007). Over the years, the number of matches has increased steadily, before declining post-2007 (after the first World T20); every world cup year has hosted more ODIs than its neighbours.

In the first few non-world cup years of the format, only a handful of matches were played which shows that these matches were not taken seriously, and were mostly an afterthought during the test tour. In such cases of wide disparity, how do we compartmentalize different eras? Fortunately, the World cup can be used as a starting point here.

Defining era: Each time period has at least 250 matches.

Partitioning ODIs into 9 different eras in this manner gives us a sufficient number of ODIs to play with; all eras have an excess of 250 ODIs – large enough to make up for one-off statistical oddities. Of particular interest would be the 1989-1993 era, which contained the 1992 World Cup: where Martin Crowe and his nuclear weapon – Mark Greatbatch – challenged prevailing ODI wisdom of opening in the ODIs.

Suddenly, openers around the world woke up from their slumber and were now awake to new possibilities. No more pinch hitter business – everyone had to hit, and not just in a pinch. Each nation had to develop nuclear weapons of their own and a credible second strike capability. Jayasuriya, Tendulkar, Waugh and Anwar were the ones who first sought the slipstream. How did all this affect ODI stats?

In general, batting positions 1-4 are the best place to bat in ODIs; looking at the stats, 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. In an ODI chase, the match is deemed to be won after the total is overhauled (duh!), for the loss of less than 10 wickets. Hence, one can envisage some key factors influencing a chase: how fast a batsman scored his runs (strike rate), his propensity to stay not-out, and the ability to rack up big scores. Therefore, we will be examining Strike Rate (runs/100 balls), Not Out% (% of innings not being dismissed), Big score% (% of scores over 50), and 100% (% of innings resulting in a 100).

Staying power: The variation of strike rate and not out% across eras

The biggest change in batting at the top of the order happened after the 1992 World cup due to Greatbatch’s pyrotechnics;  the strike rate has been steadily climbing ever since, more so at the opening positions. Even lower down the order, strike rates have increased from their earlier levels. Nowadays, the best place to score fast is in the opening slot, unlike 25 years ago – when seeing off the new ball was the openers’ primary responsibility.

Correspondingly, the Not Out% has changed a bit over the years, albeit at much smaller levels compared to the strike rate. 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. Here too, scoring faster has reduced the frequency of batsmen staying not out across the board, after 2004. What about the big scores then?

Striking it big: Incidence of big scores in different eras, across the batting order.

From the above graph, it can be seen that the chances of making a big score while chasing is quite slim coming in at number 6. On the other hand, batsmen higher up the order have scored big (50 or more) approximately once in five chases. One can also observe a recent glut of batsmen between 1 & 4 scoring hundreds. While there were minor fluctuations before the turn of the millennium, it has been an uphill battle to contain these top order bats five years since.

The correlation between scoring fast in a chase and giving a greater opportunity for batsmen to score 100s is also easily seen in the above plots. Even though the Big Score% is relatively flat, scoring faster in a chase recently has meant that batsmen at the top of the order have been able to convert their 50s to 100s far more frequently. Gavaskar would have given his approval.

Armed with this knowledge, which metric can be applied as a benchmark of batting ability in a chase? All things considered, two numbers matter more than most – the runs per dismissal (batting average, or BA in short), and the strike rate. The product of the two divided by 100, called the Batting Index (BI), can be used as the benchmark of choice. Since it is a multiplication product, a high BI value implies that the constituent factors of BA and SR are high as well.

Setting a benchmark: Variation of BI across the batting order, in different eras.

The table containing BI data (chases only) from all eras across the batting order reveals some important insight as well. The BI for openers was quite stagnant until era 4, after which it took an upward turn to lead in magnitude by era 5, only ceding the top position to the number 3 in the latest era. Till then, batsmen batting at 3 & 4 had the best values for BI.

The BI values after the number 5 position have traditionally tailed off quite drastically in a chase; of late, the lower order batsmen have reaped the benefits of the top order batting more aggressively. However, in the latest 3 eras, the BI is quite flat for the top 5 batsmen across the batting order.

For the purposes of this analysis, the overall BI (batting positions 1 to 7) has been taken as the baseline. This may cause an under-representation of batsmen from number 6 and 7, since their chasing BI is not in the same league as the top 5. However, a universal baseline is much easier to apply across the board and hence will be used in this article.

The next step would be to create appropriate cutoffs – we wouldn’t want a player who managed to get great numbers in 4 matches of an era (case in point: Google Andy Ganteaume), and be hailed as the best ODI chaser, would we? One of the easy ways to do that is to impose a minimum run cutoff for batsmen who batted in positions between 1-7 at different eras.

Since the total number of matches started taking off only after the late 1980s, we could use a bar of 500 runs before era 3, and 750 runs for all eras post 1988. This minimum run cutoff would ensure that each batsman chased in at least 10+ innings during the respective eras. Once the selection criteria is clear, we can now find out the 20 batsmen with the best BI ratios (w.r.t to the 1-7 BI baselines) in different eras.

Chasing champions in the first 3 eras of ODI cricket

In the first two eras, Vivian Richards was the undisputable ace of the chase. The dominance of the West Indian team is quite clear from the above table – Lloyd, Haynes and Greenidge also feature; other ODI chase kings like Miandad, Chappell, Jones, Vengsarkar, and Lamb make up the list. Kapil Dev’s great BI ratio is of remarkable, considering his low batting position.

Around the time the ODI blueprint was being taken apart by Greatbatch, his captain Martin Crowe was in a rich vein of chasing form. Other top chasers in this period included Azhar, Lara, Ranatunga and two Pakistanis.

 Chasing champions in the middle 3 eras of ODI cricket

In the post-enlightened opener era after the 1992 World cup, a new breed of top-3 batsmen started to boss the chase: Lara, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting, Trescothick, Gibbs, Sehwag and Gayle. Middle order regulars such as Bevan, de Silva, Steve Waugh, Sarwan and Cronje complete the round-up of batsmen who had credible BI ratio numbers from eras 4-6. Zimbabwe’s Neil Johnson is a surprise entry around the turn of the millennium.

Chasing champions in the latest 3 eras of ODI cricket

In the last three eras, the middle order batsmen have stormed up the table with a vengeance – Dhoni, AB de Villiers, Kohli, Eoin Morgan, Yuvraj Singh have racked up some stellar numbers. Credit must also go to Jayasuriya for making a reappearance in the top 10 after nearly 10 years.

From the above tables, it can be said that AB de Villiers’ Era 8 chasing BI ratio is the highest, with Tendulkar’s Era 5 a notch below; some great batsmen also hover above the 2.00 mark. It must also be noted that the top 10 chasers didn’t necessarily inhabit the same spread of BI ratio across eras. For example, in Era 3, the top 10 ranged from ~1.9 to ~1.3, whereas in the latest era, the top-10 chasers are spread across ~1.5 to ~2.5.

In order to correct for this, a BI ratio cutoff of 1.40 can be applied to get an elite list of batsmen. The 1.40 benchmark was specifically chosen as at least 9 players have surpassed it in each era. This ratio represents a 40% better chasing performance compared to the baseline during the era.

So how long did these players dominate the rest of the field?

Ace of chase: Players having a high level of BI (1.75 or 1.40) across multiple eras.

Only a handful of players have been able to outperform the baseline consistently in more than one era; the sheer paucity of multiple appearances shows how difficult it is to maintain chasing excellence in ODIs across different eras. Some of the greatest ODI batsmen are part of this elite list of players who have crossed a chasing high BI ratio of (1.75 and 1.40) across multiple eras.

In the above table, the player’s name, and his n^th appearance (in parentheses) across different eras has been documented. For instance, Vengsarkar made his 2^nd appearance at a chasing BI ratio > 1.40 in the second era. It must be noted that a player’s multiple appearance in the 1.75 column is not reported in the 1.40 column, although it is axiomatic. For example, Gordon Greenidge had a BI ratios of ~1.63 and ~2.21 in the first two eras, but since he didn’t cross 1.75 in both the eras, his presence is noted in the 1.40 column.

In the 1.40 list, only Lara and Jayasuriya have made their n^th appearance across non-consecutive eras. And, only three players feature across 3 eras: Lara, Dhoni and Gayle. If the bar is set higher at 1.75, this rarified air is occupied by the Richards, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, AB de Villiers and Kohli; all of them bonafide legends of the ODI game. Amongst these champions, only Tendulkar and Gilchrist have carried this scarcely believable chasing BI ratio over 3 eras. However, it must also be remembered that the first era was 14 years long, and Kohli and AB de Villiers might still chase at their present levels in the coming years.

What can be said about teams who have a procession of batsmen with guts of titanium?

It is reasonable to assume that a team with multiple such players during an era will, on an average, be better at chasing when compared to a team with poor chasing resources. It also follows that a batting lineup with 3 such batsmen is effectively worth at least an extra batsman in the chase, on an average. Hence, the last thing to do would be to see how many batsmen had excellent chasing BI ratios in different eras, and how their teams fared due to their talents.

True grit: The countries with the most number of good chasers in each era have won international tournaments.

In every era, only 9 to 17 batsmen have breached the 1.40 chasing BI level, showing how selective this benchmark is. In 6 eras, one team has had the clear lead in the number of such batsmen at their disposal. And, in the 3 eras where multiple teams have held this honour, either no one team has dominated over the rest, or the said teams were part of a generational shift.

Unsurprisingly, there is a clear correlation between international success during a particular era and the number of high quality chasing personnel in the team. Every time a single team has led the stockpile, it has experienced on-field success; every one of these well-stocked teams have won at least one multi-nation trophy during the era.

Coming to think of it, this correlation is intuitive: cricket championships are invariably decided by knockout matches after a group phase. By default, the winner would not have lost in a knock-out match (duh!). There have been 78 knock-out matches in multi-nation international tournaments (World Cup, Champions Trophy, World Championship of Cricket); teams winning the toss have shown a clear preference to bat first (50 times), and use the scoreboard pressure to their advantage. It also follows that every team that reached the final would have invariably chased in a knockout match more often than not, and chase well.

Indian fans scalded by the losses in the 1996 semifinals and the 2003 final may not have known this at the time, but when India were faced with a stiff chase of 275 in the 2011 World Cup final, they were well equipped to stage the heist. They were not the same team from the previous generations which had only Tendulkar (supported by Ganguly and Sehwag in two eras, respectively) to count on. Despite getting knocked out by Sri Lanka in the 2007 World Cup group stage – in a chase – they had finally turned a corner as a chasing team during the era, boasting of Dhoni, Yuvraj and Sehwag in their ranks.

One era later, they had gone one better in terms of the number of strings to their chasing bow, as the stats suggest: Kohli, Gambhir, Dhoni, and Raina – all having chasing BI ratios in excess of 1.40. As a demonstration, just a few days prior, the team had even overcome Australia (that too in a chase), en route to the final. Unsurprisingly, Gambhir and Raina had key roles to play in that humdinger of a quarterfinal at Ahmedabad. The risk of chasing had now been hedged over multiple batsmen, rather than just Tendulkar at the top of the order.

What transpired in the match is now part of Indian cricketing folklore: In reply to Sri Lanka’s 274 headlined by Jayawardene’s sublime century, a generation of cricket fans shuddered when India were reduced to 31/2. Visions of 1996 and 2003 may have haunted fans, but not this team bursting at its seams with high-class chasing pedigree.

Kohli and Gambhir played in their part in a mini-recovery; Kohli’s dismissal brought in Dhoni, who would deliver the game’s denouement with his defining contribution. Later on, Sangakkara would later on ruefully note that the total was insufficient, considering India’s batting depth in the chase. You bet he was right.

Looking back, Dhoni’s quip (and innings) was a sentence alright; and a fine death sentence to Sri Lankan ambitions, and Muralitharan’s ODI career, at that. The fans who had seen countless Indian chasing nightmares unfolding in front of them in the ‘90s would sleep a good night’s sleep (or not, if they were celebrating).

The fans watched on breathlessly with anticipation, with Ravi Shastri’s commentary blaring out of the idiot box, not grudging him for his tracer bullets, as the match headed to an inevitable climax. That freeze-frame shot for six would forever be etched in the collective memories of Indian fans, as much as the image of Kapil Dev – bearing a toothy grin – hoisting the Prudential Cup on the Lord’s balcony.

Sealed with a six: Dhoni’s strike is now part of Indian cricketing history. Image source: 2.

“….and Dhoniiiiiiiiii finishes off in style, a magnificent strike into the crowd…”

Except, this time the sentence didn’t just end in a full stop, but with an exclamation point.

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