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

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.

 

Last chance for India to solve its middle order puzzle

The last time Yuvraj Singh was in the Indian ODI team three years ago, he cut a forlorn figure on the cricket field. Any person who had dropped two tough catches — Quinton de Kock, who would go on to score his third successive hundred, and the one who shall not be named AB – was bound to be disappointed. He was running on borrowed time and nostalgia value: he had painfully amassed 276 runs over 15 innings in 2013, at less than 80 SR, and his bowling had petered out. By the time the second innings was washed out by persistent rain and the match was abandoned, the writing was on the wall.

The end of 2013 marked, in many ways, the end of the Indian team’s most successful ODI epoch. Between Sachin Tendulkar’s last outing in coloured clothing in March 2012, and Yuvraj Singh’s above-mentioned then-last ODI in December 2013, the team that tasted success had been disbanded.  The purge included important cogs like Sehwag, Gambhir, and Zaheer Khan, and other players who shone briefly like Yusuf Pathan, Sreesanth, and Piyush Chawla. The cumulative experience of these men tallied an astronomical 1500 ODIs.  It was not that the others were safe either; at the time, only Kohli and Dhoni were not on the selectorial chopping board.  By all counts, it was going to be difficult to find replacements.

The Indian team had been at a similar juncture sometime back. Just around six years prior, the Indian team had to make a tough choice. Three stalwarts from the Indian team – Ganguly, Dravid and Laxman – were overlooked for the CB series during the 2007-08 tour to Australia. The reason that was bandied about was “fielding issues”. Dhoni, with the weight of the 2007 T20 World cup victory behind him, had pushed for youth (as an aside, this very selection scene from his biopic was edited before release to remove the names of these cricketers). But with India winning the CB series, the move was hailed as a masterstroke.

2013 was also the year of India’s Champions trophy victory, which completed Dhoni’s box set. The presence of three Indians each amongst the top six in the batting and bowling charts hinted at a brave new world. If one were to only look at the top order, by all counts it has been a successful transition. The much pilloried Rohit Sharma has been a great success as a naturalized opener, playing some gargantuan knocks (four 150+ scores) in the process.

Stable at the top: Variation of Batting average and strike rate of the India’s top order (1-3) versus top-9 teams in the last three eras. The returns have been more or less stable.

Since 2008, the Indian top order (1-3) has been in rude health. Recently, they have gone from strength to strength, and have improved upon the already high batting average against the top teams. Out of the top-9 teams, they boast of the highest batting average amongst the lot and their strike rate is very much in the mix. Of course, it also helps to have world-class ODI personnel like Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli in the team.

Wobbly in the middle: Variation of batting average and strike rate of India’s middle order (4-7) versus top-9 teams in the last three eras. The batting average has dropped from its previous high levels.

On the other hand, the middle order (4-7) paints a totally different story. In the heady days of 2008-10 and 2011-13, the Indian team’s middle order had the best batting average and strike rate statistics against the other top-9 teams. The foundation of India’s 2011 World cup victory was built on shaking the ‘90s tag of poor chasers and pivoting to a chase-first team under Dhoni’s stewardship. But the last 3 years have been a departure from these ideals, and the middle order’s returns have declined in the format (fifth, behind South Africa, England, New Zealand and England).

A single statistic to capture their fall would be the Batting Index (BI). The BI is a product of the Batting Average (BA) and the Strike Rate (SR), divided by 100. Since both the constituent measures are important in ODIs, it follows that a high value of the mathematical product (BI) encompasses information about both quantities.

Middle of the class: The evolution of the middle order’s (4-7) batting index versus other top-9 teams across the last three eras. India’s BI is not amongst the top and has registered the steepest fall in the current era.

The BI for the Indian middle order against the top teams has registered the steepest fall from its earlier peak. The plot clearly shows that the Indian middle order regressed while nearly every other top team has improved its showing in the last 3 years (the green points being equal or higher than the red and blue ones). Indian players are conspicuous by the paucity of 30+ at a 150+ SR in the same time period; same goes for 50+ partnerships at 150+ SR.  Meaning, the middle order does not pack the punch it once had. On this note, India certainly overachieved in the 2015 World cup by reaching the semis.

Ever since Rabada thwarted Dhoni in Kanpur in 2015, there have been murmurs about Dhoni’s finishing ability. Dhoni also registered some average numbers last year: an average of under 28 and a strike rate of 80, well below his stellar career benchmarks. There is also a genuine debate about his right position. However, the others have not contributed to the confusion either; the Kohli experiment at no.4 in 2015 was a failure; Rahane has not been trusted in slower pitches; Raina could not hold his place in the team; barring K L Rahul, the IPL has not thrown in any new names into the mix.

In the 6 years preceding this era, a total of 23 players were tried in the middle order, featuring in 162 matches against top opposition; that already 18 players have featured in over 50 matches against the top teams in the last three years shows the kind of flux the Indian middle order is in (matches against Zimbabwe were not included as they tend to have experimental sides).

As the Indian team goes into its last ODI series before its Champions trophy defence, the Indian team needs to solve its middle order puzzle. It is also clear that India needs Dhoni on his best form to have any chance. Jadhav, Rahul and Pandey have shown glimpses of their ability no doubt, but the selection of an old hand in Yuvraj Singh shows the selectors’ desperation in the matter.

Back in 2003, Abhijit Kale was banned for allegedly offering a bribe to get selected in the Indian middle order; today, one suspects that the selectors would be happy to offer money to anyone to unearth two worthy middle order fixtures for the Indian team (with my tongue firmly in cheek).

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.

Wanted: A nuclear warhead

The Buddha has smiled: The Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, inspecting the site of the 1974 Nuclear test. Image sources: 1 & 2.

In 1974, in a remote corner of the Thar Desert called Pokhran, the Indian government conducted its first nuclear bomb test. Looking back, this was a seismic (in many ways) event in world politics. A country which had not yet become self- sufficient in agriculture (and whose malnourished subjects were often cover page images for western magazines) was now the first country outside the permanent members of the UN Security Council to have nuclear weapons. Codenamed Smiling Buddha, it was ironic that it was named after a sage who advocated peace. It must have been the work of an enthusiastic and overactive diplomatic civil servant- one who wanted to stress India’s “peaceful” intention. It was the shining example of India developing deterrence and second strike capability against military belligerents.

Fast forward to this time last year, another seismic shift had happened in Indian cricket. M S Dhoni had retired from the test format and handed over reins to Virat Kohli. With abject showings in England and Australia, the calls for a new captain were welcomed as Kohli had just led a spirited chase in Adelaide. With the World cup looming on the horizon, a tired India sleepwalked through the ODI leg of the tour. India could have afforded it- it had the best W/L record in the last 2 years as well as in neutral and away locations. It held both the ODI championships simultaneously, something only managed by the almighty Australian team and the Indian team of the 1980s vintage. It exited the tournament unable to keep up with a high score chase in the semifinals.

Before that game, the middle order had shown signs of being rickety for quite a while. In the 2014 T20 World Cup final, Yuvraj Singh, hero of the 2007 and 2011 World cup triumphs, batted as if he was under a hex. The top order had been in good shape- 3 Indians were in the top 8 batting averages in the preceding 2 years (min. 500 runs) when an average top order player scored 35 runs at 80 SR per dismissal. After all, they had fashioned the communist regime led inflationary spiral powered run buffets against the Australians at home. The middle order was a different story though; only 2 Indians were present in the top 15– Raina languished in the 20^th position. It has been more of the same in the last year, a watershed moment for India’s ODI generation.

Year	Batting average					Strike rate
	Dhoni	Yuvraj	Raina	Jadeja	World	Dhoni	Yuvraj	Raina	Jadeja	World
2005	46.77	45.38	–	–	33.39	106.31	81.70	–	–	79.71
2006	39.50	42.40	29.18	–	29.07	96.04	83.72	69.91	–	74.99
2007	40.66	46.11	–	–	31.81	91.12	90.15	–	–	80.66
2008	57.73	44.61	76.50	–	29.46	82.29	102.68	100.87	–	76.81
2009	60.42	39.15	41.76	17.60	30.54	79.36	95.95	107.95	56.41	79.43
2010	46.15	31.72	39.43	30.66	31.00	78.94	70.08	97.22	73.99	77.21
2011	58.76	50.33	30.31	31.42	30.59	89.88	81.91	97.94	86.95	80.08
2012	65.50	–	41.00	17.50	31.27	87.62	–	96.85	71.91	80.24
2013	62.50	19.71	32.04	38.36	30.92	96.04	78.40	83.92	82.90	82.24
2014	52.25	–	37.46	59.60	33.15	92.07	–	111.69	104.92	86.54
2015	45.71	–	32.31	18.00	32.29	86.83	–	99.42	85.03	89.50

Table 1: Year-wise batting stats of India’s most regular middle order in the last 10 years. Red text indicates a below average performance w.r.t the world average whereas Green text indicates an above average performance.

The Indian top order performances dropped below by a notch in 2015. The middle order? It was stuck in quicksand- every time it tried to hit itself out of trouble, it sunk even lower. Only Dhoni had satisfactory numbers in 2015 but murmurs had become louder even after scoring 45 runs per dismissal at 86 SR. Even England, who were ridiculed for their limited overs ineptitude since the early 1990s, seemed to have got their act together. One by one, India’s big guns have fallen by the wayside. Yuvraj was the first to depart from the ODI team and recently, Raina was dropped. To make matters worse, no ready replacements dot the horizon.

The gaping hole in the middle order has been historically covered well by M S Dhoni’s heroics and it is no surprise that it has reared its ugly head in his worst year since 2007. This time around, he is all alone in the midst of greenhorns, with people questioning his skills, his decision to bat higher and his place in the team. The 2012 ODI rules have ruined the team’s balance by robbing the contribution of the part timer. Dhoni may not show the pressure but for a man fascinated with the Indian army, he would surely associate with the feeling of being in the crosshairs. After many years of splendid service, he has earned the right to bat higher up the order thus becoming the point where the batting order pivots, a la Imran Khan in the 1992 World cup. He may not have the big hitting prowess of old but he more than makes it up with his ODI cadence. Furthermore, along with personnel changes, India are struggling to come up with a new template for big hitting. This has reflected in the strike rates- in 2015, 12 middle order players scored at more than run a ball and an Indian is not amongst them. To add insult to injury, India’s middle order scored slower than England, New Zealand and Bangladesh in 2015.

Year	World	Ind	Pak	SL	Ban	Aus	SA	WI	NZ	Eng
2011	13	3	3	1	0	1	0	2	0	3
2012	12	5	1	1	2	2	0	0	1	0
2013	32	3	5	2	0	6	6	2	3	4
2014	26	1	4	1	4	3	4	1	6	2
2015	35	2	3	3	1	5	6	1	7	5

Table 2: Year-wise instances of big hitting by middle order batsmen (30+ runs @ 150+ SR in an ODI inning). Red text indicates a below average number of instances w.r.t the world average whereas Green text indicates an above average number of instances.

With the T20 World cup looming on the horizon, India has no answer to the “Who would take strike for India in a super over scenario?” question. Ever since the ODI rules changed in 2012, there has been a glut of high octane scores (minimum score of 30 to minimize the effect of a few lucky edges) by the middle order (by ~2.5 times). The recent rules changes have not reined in the stroke makers. India were the team to follow prior to 2012, with a higher than average number of explosive exploits from the middle order; since 2013 though, the party scene has shifted firmly to the southern hemisphere. It comes as no surprise that India’s 3 fellow semi- finalists have lifted their game during India’s decadence.

Ka- Boom! : The intercontinental ballistic missiles of the ODI cricketing world in the last 5 years.

In the years preceding India’s nadir, Dhoni and Raina featured regularly in the number of scores over 150 strike rate list. They have been India’s nuclear weapons for the last five years (with the above 11 accounting for 58 of the 118 scores from 2011 to 2015). However, in 2015, only one inning each by Rahane and Raina made the cut- meaning, India’s personnel have not shown big hitting chops for a while. The bench strength cupboard is pretty bare; the IPL, which is supposed throw clues about a suitable combustible batsman has no new name for the billboard. The man with the highest strike rate (min: 300 runs) is Rohit Sharma, who is a top order batsman for India. The corresponding tables for the preceding seasons also reaffirm the theme of poverty. On this note, India is certainly not amongst the favourites for the upcoming T20 world cup unless one player has a whirlwind tournament; and, India overachieved in the 2015 World cup. Simply put, India has no deterrence or second strike capability for a high score chase without the help of its top order.

It is no coincidence that India lost steam after losing its top order in the semi- final in the 2015 World Cup. India should have recognized the warning signs when no new player cemented his middle order spot in the last 2 years. The same leitmotif of missed opportunity runs loud and clear in the 2 generations of Indian cricketers of the noughties- barring Sehwag and Dhoni, no one else has a legitimate shot at all- time greatness. The last time an India player on the fringes played an innings to strike fear into the opposition’s hearts was in 2011, when Yusuf Pathan (who was a super- over candidate) single handedly took India within sight of the target. Dhoni himself has talked about the paucity of ready for launch options on the eve of the first match, hinting at a systemic problem. India certainly would do well with greater batting depth and will hope to uncover one batting bright spot in this tour. Gurkeerat Singh and Rishi Dhawan have shown clutch batting performances against Australia A and Bangladesh A in the last few months and their progress will be viewed quite closely. A good showing would go a long way in providing much needed lumbar support to the Indian team; and bring a smile to the old man on his last legs, who is probably playing his last world event in 2016– the Smiling budha.

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