It Figures

November 30, 2008
Posted by Anantha Narayanan on 11/30/2008 in ODIs
An analysis of ODI matches





Ajantha Mendis' strike-rate of 16 has helped boost the overall strike-rate for spinners in recent years © AFP

This is a statistical summary of the 2784 matches which have been played over the past 36 years, somewhat similar to the Test analysis I had done earlier. Certain changes have been done to the analysis to bring out the nuances of ODIs. As I have indicated in earlier posts, these factors will be incorporated into the ODI batting and ODI bowling analysis which will be done henceforth.

I wanted to incorporate the Duckworth/Lewis (or its equivalent) calculations in ODI matches into the article. However I feel that it warrants a separate article in the light of the farce during the fourth ODI between India and England in Cuttack.

The six periods have been constructed taking into account the number of matches. It is possible minor adjustments will bring major rule changes in sync with the periods. However that would leave the number of matches unbalanced.

Let us get into the analysis of the tables. These tables are current upto ODI #2784, the fourth ODI between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka.

1. Match analysis (Runs/Wkts per match, Rpo, Rpw)

Period    Mats  R/M  W/M  Rpo  Rpw|Mats   Balls    Runs   Wkts

1971-1983  230  386 14.1 4.17 27.4 | 230  127653   88731   3236
1984-1989  368  393 13.6 4.42 28.8 | 368  196071  144445   5017
1990-1995  429  400 13.8 4.43 29.0 | 429  232499  171613   5921
1996-2000  635  426 14.4 4.71 29.6 | 635  344424  270484   9147
2001-2005  647  426 14.1 4.85 30.1 | 647  340291  275350   9149
2006-2008  475  424 14.4 4.95 29.6 | 475  244589  201631   6820

All ODIs  2784  414 14.1 4.65 29.3 |2784 1485527 1152254  39290

The wickets per match has been reasonably steady over the years. There is a 10% increase over the past few years in the runs per match. However, the major change is in runs per over (rpo), which has shown an 18% increase over the years. The current rpo figure is about 10% over the all-time average. The runs per wicket has remained almost the same over the past 25 years.

There must be very little doubt the rpo has shown an increase primarily due to the change in the treatment of the opening overs and Powerplays.

2. Match/Inns Analysis (Low & High inns scores)

Period    %I<100  %I>300 %M>300x2 |Inns  I<100  I>300  M>300x2

1971-1983   7.41    2.86    0.00  | 455    10     13      0
1984-1989   5.49    0.55    0.00  | 729     9      4      0
1990-1995   4.44    2.23    0.47  | 853    10     19      2
1996-2000   1.98    5.48    1.73  |1259     8     69     11
2001-2005   5.77    7.72    2.01  |1283    24     99     13
2006-2008   6.47   10.87    3.58  | 938    20    102     17

All ODIs    4.90    5.55    1.54  |5517    81    306     43

The percentage of (all out) innings below 100 follows a peculiar pattern. It’s very high during the two end periods and very low during one particular period (1996-2000). Frankly, I cannot explain the sub-2% figure.

The 300-plus total, after being virtually non-existent during the 1980s, has now moved to over 10%. In other words, more than one in every 10 innings is a 300-plus innings. The batsmen never had it so good. Spare a thought for the bowlers, shackled in every which way.

I am intrigued when I look at the last few years. There is a high percentage of totals below 100 and an extraordinarily high number of totals above 300. Maybe it indicates a number of weak teams and a few strong teams.

The first match in which both teams exceeded 300 runs occurred in 1992 between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka in New Plymouth. Since then it has happened quite frequently, with high number of occurrences in recent years.

3. Opening partnerships analysis

Period    Open OP100+ OPSub10   |OpPShps 100+ Sub10  Runs

1971-1983 34.9   7.0%   25.5%   |   455   32   116  15863 
1984-1989 34.9   6.3%   27.0%   |   729   46   197  25461 
1990-1995 35.8   7.3%   26.7%   |   853   62   228  30507 
1996-2000 35.3   6.8%   26.9%   |  1259   85   339  44462 
2001-2005 34.5   8.1%   30.6%   |  1283  104   392  44226 
2006-2008 33.7   7.0%   32.4%   |   938   66   304  31621 

All ODIs  34.8   7.2%   28.6%   |  5517  395  1576 192140 

The opening partnerships have averaged around 35 over the years with very little variations. Similarly there has been a 7% occurrence of 100-plus opening partnerships through the different periods. It is only in the failed opening partnerships that there has been a significant 20-25% increase during the current decade. This may again be a reflection of more weaker teams.

4. Extras Analysis - per 300 balls (Extras/Byes/Leg-byes/No-balls/Wides)

Period    E/3b B/3b L/3b N/3b W/3b|Extras Byes Leg-byes No-balls 
Wides

1971-1983 15.1  1.8  8.0  2.7  2.6|  6446  780   3419   1137   
1110
1984-1989 16.9  1.8  8.4  2.5  4.2| 11031 1161   5520   1605  
2745
1990-1995 16.9  1.1  7.2  2.7  6.0| 13060  834   5547   2063   
4616
1996-2000 17.7  1.0  6.0  3.1  7.6| 20325 1153   6901   3547   
8724
2001-2005 17.9  1.0  5.4  3.4  8.1| 20278 1142   6071   3879   
9171
2006-2008 17.4  1.0  5.1  2.4  8.9| 14172  800   4143   1970   
7244

All ODIs  17.2  1.2  6.4  2.9  6.8| 85312 5870  31601  14201  
33610

This time I have computed the extras per 300 balls, as it constitutes being a normal completed innings. The extras per 300 balls has remained fairly static over the years. Byes have dropped significantly after the first two periods and then remained static. This has occurred despite the wicketkeeper standing up to a number of medium-pacers. Similarly, the leg-byes per match was quite high during the first two periods and then dropped off. One possible reason could be the deployment of more spinners after the initial two periods.

The number of wides per 300 balls has increased drastically over the years, certainly because of very strict interpretation of wides by the umpires. It is true the number of off-side wides has increased significantly over the past few years. Also, virtually no allowance is given for any leg-side deviation.

Now we come to no-balls. Very interesting indeed. The last three years has seen a drastic drop in no-balls per match. This is not because the bowlers have suddenly become more attentive about where to land their feet. The reduction has been primarily caused by the free-hit rule, which penalises bowlers to a great extent. While not accepting that this is necessarily a correct law change - it penalises an already-beleagured bowler more - there is no denying the bowlers are now a lot more careful about overstepping.

The recent rule changes also mean that there are more transgressions covered for declaring no-balls, such as short deliveries and deliberate high full tosses. This would also contribute to the increase in no-balls.

5. Results Analysis - (Results/HomeWins/AwayWins/NoRes)

Period    FbtW SbtW OthW NoRes |Mats  FbtW  SbtW  OthW  NoRes

1971-1983 47.8 48.3  0.4  3.5  | 230   110   111     1     8
1984-1989 42.9 53.0  0.5  3.5  | 368   158   195     2    13
1990-1995 51.0 44.5  0.0  4.4  | 429   219   191     0    19
1996-2000 46.5 49.1  0.2  4.3  | 635   295   312     1    27
2001-2005 49.3 46.2  0.2  4.3  | 647   319   299     1    28
2006-2008 46.1 49.1  0.0  4.8  | 475   219   233     0    23

First a summary of the "Other wins" matches.

ODI # 56: Conceded by India against Pakistan as a gesture of protest.
ODI # 435: India defeated Pakistan on the basis of losing fewer wickets.
ODI # 522: Pakistan defeated Australia on the basis of losing fewer wickets.
ODI # 1081: Sri Lanka won by default against India because of Calcutta
crowd disturbances.
ODI # 1724: Conceded by England against Pakistan as a sporting gesture.

During two of the periods (early 1990s and early 2000s), the teams batting first won more matches than teams chasing. During the other four periods, more teams have won chasing than defending. Overall also there seems to be an edge for the team batting second. This difference seems to be more pronounced during the past few years. The number of "No results" has also increased significantly, probably caused by the obsession to play matches during all 12 months, irrespective of weather conditions.

1. Batting analysis (Right & Left)

Period    R-Avg L-Avg T-Avg|R-Inns R-Runs|L-Inns L-Runs|T-Inns 
T-Runs

1971-1983 25.00 27.21 25.48| 3125   63208|  847   19077| 3972   
82285
1984-1989 26.99 24.89 26.60| 5174  110394| 1110   23020| 6284  
133414
1990-1995 26.20 28.50 26.80| 5514  114697| 1844   43856| 7358  
158553
1996-2000 25.59 31.74 27.39| 7980  165169| 3211   84990|11191 
 250159
2001-2005 26.64 30.95 27.90| 8068  172554| 3184   82518|11252  
255072
2006-2008 26.53 30.20 27.51| 6145  132316| 2189   55143| 8334  
187459

All ODIs  26.23 29.86 27.18|36006  758338|12385  308604|48391 
1066942

Barring the first period, the batting average seems to have settled around a value of 27.

As in Test matches, the left-handers have a higher average (by a margin of 15%). Most of the reader comments on this topic will be applicable. Note the very high average for left-handers during the most recent period.

2. Batting analysis 2 (Batting strike-rate - Left & Right)

Period    R-SR L-SR T-SR|R-Runs R-Balls|L-Runs LBalls| T-Runs 
T-Balls

1971-1983 63.6 64.5 63.8| 63208   99457| 19077  29586|  82285  
129043
1984-1989 68.0 64.0 67.2|110394  162407| 23020  35986| 133414  
198393
1990-1995 67.1 68.0 67.3|114697  170985| 43856  64480| 158553  
235465
1996-2000 70.8 73.8 71.8|165169  233336| 84990 115219| 250159  
348555
2001-2005 73.4 75.9 74.2|172554  235245| 82518 108727| 255072  
343972
2006-2008 76.3 75.7 76.1|132316  173455| 55143  72877| 187459  
246332

All ODIs  70.6 72.3 71.0|758338 1074885|308604 426875|1066942
1501760

The scoring-rate was quite low during the first three periods and has now picked up to be around the 76-mark. There is a significant variation of around 20% over the years. Barring one period, the left-handers seem to be scoring slightly faster than right-handers.

3. Bowling analysis 1 (Bowling average - Pace & Spin)

Period    P-Avg S-Avg T-Avg|PWkts  PRuns|SWkts  SRuns| TWkts  
TRuns

1971-1983 27.49 34.51 28.64| 2402  66042|  471  16254| 2873  
 82296
1984-1989 30.50 34.86 31.63| 3227  98432| 1124  39185| 4351  
137617
1990-1995 30.84 36.13 32.25| 3754 115771| 1369  49460| 5123  
165231
1996-2000 31.69 34.93 32.76| 5357 169762| 2653  92665| 8010  
262427
2001-2005 31.20 35.88 32.50| 5896 183949| 2277  81697| 8173  
265646
2006-2008 31.24 33.56 31.77| 4734 147904| 1386  46509| 6120  
194413

All ODIs  30.82 35.10 31.97|25370 781860| 9280 325770|34650 
1107630

The bowling average follows the same pattern as batting strike-rate. Quite low during the first period and then plateauing around 31 during the next five periods.

As expected the averages for pace bowlers are lower - only over 10% - when compared to spinners. The last period, however, has seen a narrowing of this gap. The trend of depending on spinners has also picked up as evidenced by the recently concluded Zimbabwe-Sri Lanka series, where both teams had two fast bowlers and an assortment of four to five spinners.

4. Bowling analysis 2 (Bowling strike-rate - Pace & Spin)

Period    P-SR S-SR T-SR|PWkts  PBalls|SWkts SBalls| TWkts
TBalls

1971-1983 43.2 50.7 44.4| 2402  103758|  471  23895| 2873 
127653
1984-1989 43.7 48.9 45.1| 3227  141092| 1124  54979| 4351  
196071
1990-1995 43.8 49.8 45.4| 3754  164280| 1369  68219| 5123  
232499
1996-2000 41.5 46.0 43.0| 5357  222455| 2653 121969| 8010  
344424
2001-2005 39.2 46.7 41.3| 5896  230917| 2277 106387| 8173 
337304
2006-2008 38.3 43.8 39.5| 4734  181269| 1386  60668| 6120  
241937

All ODIs  41.1 47.0 42.7|25370 1043771| 9280 436117|34650 
1479888

Surprisingly, there seems to be a distinct improvement of bowler strike-rates during the past few years. Again, one cannot but point to the number of weak teams playing one-day cricket.

The strike-rate for pace bowlers are 15% better those for spinners. Recently, spinners seem to be striking better, no doubt aided by Ajantha Mendis, who has taken 48 wickets in his first 17 matches at a strike-rate of a wicket every 16 balls. (Yes, you read it right, 16.)

5. Bowling analysis 3 (Bowling rpo - Pace & Spin)

Period    PRpo SRpo TRpo| PRuns  PBalls| SRuns SBalls|  TRuns 
TBalls

1971-1983 3.82 4.08 3.87| 66042  103758| 16254  23895|  82296  
127653
1984-1989 4.19 4.28 4.21| 98432  141092| 39185  54979| 137617  
196071
1990-1995 4.23 4.35 4.26|115771  164280| 49460  68219| 165231  
232499
1996-2000 4.58 4.56 4.57|169762  222455| 92665 121969| 262427  
344424
2001-2005 4.78 4.61 4.73|183949  230917| 81697 106387| 265646  
337304
2006-2008 4.90 4.60 4.82|147904  181269| 46509  60668| 194413  
241937

All ODIs  4.49 4.48 4.49|781860 1043771|325770 436117|1107630 
1479888

The rpo seems to have increased by about 5% during recent years - not a very big change. The surprise is that the all-matches rpo figure for pace bowlers and spinners is almost the same.

6. Dismissals analysis

a. Bowled - (% and per match)

Period   Bowled  Wkts  % of Tot Bow/Mtch

1971-1983   813  2873     28.3     3.5 
1984-1989  1177  4351     27.1     3.2 
1990-1995  1201  5123     23.4     2.8 
1996-2000  1771  8010     22.1     2.8 
2001-2005  1762  8173     21.6     2.7 
2006-2008  1251  6120     20.4     2.6 

All ODIs   7975 34650     23.0     2.9 

b. Lbw - (% and per match)

Period   Lbw    Wkts  % of Tot Lbw/Mtch

1971-1983   289  2873     10.1     1.3 
1984-1989   382  4351      8.8     1.0 
1990-1995   497  5123      9.7     1.2 
1996-2000   820  8010     10.2     1.3 
2001-2005   932  8173     11.4     1.4 
2006-2008   752  6120     12.3     1.6 

All ODIs   3672 34650     10.6     1.3 

c. Caught - (% and per match)

Period   Ct Others Wkts  % of Tot COt/Mtch

1971-1983  1234  2873     43.0     5.4 
1984-1989  1944  4351     44.7     5.3 
1990-1995  2336  5123     45.6     5.4 
1996-2000  3800  8010     47.4     6.0 
2001-2005  3843  8173     47.0     5.9 
2006-2008  2856  6120     46.7     6.0 

All ODIs  16013 34650     46.2     5.8 

d. Stumped - (% and per match)

Period   Stumped  Wkts  % of Tot Bow/Mtch

1971-1983    54  2873      1.9     0.2 
1984-1989   141  4351      3.2     0.4 
1990-1995   183  5123      3.6     0.4 
1996-2000   317  8010      4.0     0.5 
2001-2005   222  8173      2.7     0.3 
2006-2008   194  6120      3.2     0.4 

All ODIs   1111 34650      3.2     0.4 

e. Ct by Wk - (% and per match)

Period   Ct by Wk  Wkts  % of Tot CWk/Mtch

1971-1983   443  2873     15.4     1.9 
1984-1989   648  4351     14.9     1.8 
1990-1995   838  5123     16.4     2.0 
1996-2000  1183  8010     14.8     1.9 
2001-2005  1386  8173     17.0     2.1 
2006-2008  1016  6120     16.6     2.1 

All ODIs   5514 34650     15.9     2.0 

f. Runouts - (% and per match)

Period   Runouts   Wkts  % of Tot  RO/Mtch

1971-1983   356  2873     12.4     1.5 
1984-1989   661  4351     15.2     1.8 
1990-1995   793  5123     15.5     1.8 
1996-2000  1121  8010     14.0     1.8 
2001-2005   887  8173     10.9     1.4 
2006-2008   637  6120     10.4     1.3 

All ODIs   4455 34650     12.9     1.6 
Summarised comments on dismissals

1. While the drop is not as pronounced as Test matches, the percentage of batsmen bowled, which had been high during the first two periods, has fallen to around 20% now.

2. There has been a slight increase in the lbw percentage over the years - possibly reverse-swing coming into play.

3. As expected, the percentage of catches is quite high and has remained around 45% over the years.

4. The percentage of stumpings was quite high at 4% during the late 1990s but has slipped since then. Even now an attacking spinner like Mendis, with 48 wickets in 17 matches, seems to depend more on direct dismissals such as bowled and leg-before wicket.

5. Wicketkeeper catches have only varied slightly and are now a bit higher than the all-matches average percentage.

6. Run-outs peaked to over 15% during the decade 1985-1995 but have dropped off since then. Possibly the introduction of the third umpire seems to favour the batsmen in border-line decisions.

A separate article on Duckworth/Lewis will follow during the coming weeks.

Comments (16)
Posted by: Vidhya at December 1, 2008 6:29 AM

>> However, the major change is in runs per over (rpo), which has shown an 18% increase over the years.

On the first glance, I am mildly surprised that the RPO has increased only 18%. Are minor teams (not just BD, Zim but the Canada, Bermuda etc who play each other frequently these days) responsible for the increase being rather modest ?

For all out innings, for the purpose of calculating RPO, have you used the only actual overs that teams faced, or the maximum possible (50/55/60) overs ?
[[
Only the actual balls bowled is used.
Ananth:
]]

Posted by: David Barry at December 1, 2008 7:26 AM

On no-balls: I noticed earlier this year that there had been a dip in no-balls starting just before the last World Cup. I guessed at the time that the bowlers had realised from their T20 bowling that there was barely any difference bowling at the popping crease or a foot behind it:

http://pappubahry.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-no-balls.html

On results for teams batting first and second: you need to split this between day games and day-nighters. I did the numbers since 2000 in this post:

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2008/08/why_teams_should_chase_in_day.php

There is no way that the third umpire favours batsmen, unless the on-field umpires are atrocious. Previously, benefit of the doubt went to batsmen. Now, there is rarely any doubt.
[[
David
My point is that, with the availability of technology, the third umpire makes sure that the batsman gets the benefit of doubt and ensure that the correct decision is taken even in case of direct hits. I am certain that previously many direct hiits were given in favour of the fielding team, albiet most correctly.
Ananth:
]]

Posted by: David Barry at December 1, 2008 8:00 AM

Ananth, it's a pretty big call to say that umpires used to consistently give the benefit of the doubt to the fielding side on run-outs. If you plot the percentage of run-outs against year, there's a steady decreasing trend since the mid-1990's. It's not at all like a step once the third umpire was introduced.

Posted by: Vidhya at December 1, 2008 9:21 AM

Can the drop in the percentage of run outs have anything to do with the fact that a lesser percentage of runs are being made from running between the wickets ?

The stats for early years are not available from statsguru. In 1994 & 1995, about 36% of batsmen's runs were being scored from boundaries. This increased to around 41 in 1999&2000, 44 in 2002& 2003, 46 in 2006 and 47.34 in 2007
[[
Vidhya,
Possibly a good reason. Unfortunately there is not complete data available on boundaries.
Ananth:
]]


Posted by: David Barry at December 1, 2008 11:28 AM

Vidhya, if you calculate (run outs) / (non-boundary runs), you find that it moves year-to-year pretty much in lockstep with the overall run-out proportion of all dismissals.

So it's not that batsmen are hitting more boundaries.

Posted by: Anshuman at December 1, 2008 12:16 PM

I agree with the analysis. However, I was wondering if we take the mathces against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Hongkong etc away the recent figures would come down a bit. If we take a look at these games we will find that so many records have been made against these teams. The same also applies to test matches. So while the standard of cricket has improved, the overall picture gets slightly bloated by these one sided games.
[[
My comments on weaker teams referred to teams such as Ireland/UAE/Canada/Hongkong et al and not to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. These two teams are no worse than India (until 1983) and Sri Lanka (until 1990s)
Please note that if Zimbabwe had kept their nerve for a few overs longer on three match days, they would have won the ODI series against Sri Lanka 3-2 instead of losing 0-5.
Ananth:
]]

Posted by: Jeff at December 1, 2008 2:18 PM

My own theory on the declining rate of run outs is that it's down to a combination of the increase in the standards of fielding and a (delayed) rise in the tactical awareness of batting teams...

In the 80's and early 90's, one day cricket was driving a big improvement in the standard of fielding. However, ODIs (and one day matches in general in most countries - except maybe England)were still not that common, so batsmen were still primarily geared up towards the longer form and therefore batted and ran much like they did in 1st class & test matches. This resulted in the rise in run out % from 1970 to the mid 90's.

From then onwards, ODIs exploded and teams became more focused and developed specific tactics for one day cricket (including better awareness of fielders/fielding and better judging of runs.) This then drove the % of run outs down (despite the fact that fielding has probably continued to improve.)

D/L has also helped teams pace inns better, reducing needless run outs
[[
Jeff
Probably a better explanation than my own "Third umpire" theory.
However, as you yourself have pointed it, the improvement in fielding standards should have offset this. Don't you think the better fielding teams tend to get more direct hits nowadays.
A nice conundrum to have.
Ananth:
]]

Posted by: Jonathan at December 1, 2008 11:05 PM

The low number of sub-100 scores is around the time that there were the least "weaker teams" playing ODIs, especially regularly.

With no results, I think you are right about the tendency to play cricket at any time, but in new countries - Scotland and Ireland seem to host a disproportionate number of n/r or abandoned games. The increase is all the more remarkable, given the reductions in number of overs needed to give a result.
[[
agreed, Jonathan,
and the stupidity of organizing a tournament during the peak of monsoon in Sri lanka, summer months in India. the rainy oct-nov in southern India et al. Greed knows no bounds. Otherwise why a 7-match series between India and England.
Ananth:
]]

Posted by: Ankush at December 2, 2008 4:08 AM

Pretty Interesting.
A wonderful analysis will be what % of times does the team winning the toss won the match as well.
This will really highlight how critical TOSS is in a cricket game.
[[
Ankush,
The toss, per se, is almost irrelevant when taken in an overall context. It is the decision whether to bat or field which is relevant and that factor has been included in the article.
However there is a side analysis possible. What is the correlation, if any, which exists between winning the toss and winning the match. Again with very weak teams it does not matter who wins the toss. So this has to be an analysis only amongst the top 10 teams (I am not going to remove Bang/Zim from any such calculations). Because of the special nature it could very well be a separate post.
Ananth:
]]

Posted by: Jeff at December 2, 2008 10:39 AM

Ananth,

I think you may well be correct that the better fielding teams have more direct hits but also, maybe, the better batting teams (or at least the most tactically astute teams) suffer fewer direct hits.

I think that overall fielding standards and running standards have improved at similar rates over the past decade or so, hence why the proportion of run outs has remained constant. I'd imagine that this trend will continue.

Posted by: Jeff at December 2, 2008 10:49 AM

Regarding your comment on the rpo figures for pace and spin being so similar - I think this a case where the "all-matches" figure is extremely misleading.

You can clearly see that in the early days, pace bowlers had a much better economy rate - this i'm sure was mainly due to the fact that teams in the 70s/80s/early 90s batted the first part of an ODI much like a test - ie somewhat cautiously, hoping not to lose wkts. This would have benefitted pace bowlers who bowled most of the early overs.

Then, with the Sri Lankan influence and the advent of powerplays, the situation has been reversed. Teams now attack more in the opening overs and seek to consolidate in the middle overs. This will have a negative impact on pace bowlers, who still routinely take the new ball (and also bowl at the death)

Unless powerplays change, i would expect the "all-matches" rpo will move further in the favour of spin over the coming years.
[[
Jeff,
There is this constant problem with most all-time averages. One reason why it is better to look at trends..
Ananth:
]]

Posted by: tony at December 4, 2008 5:21 PM

I am intrigued by the chasing statistic and can't help but wonder if this result still holds in matches that are not dew-affected. Given that dew is a particularly important factor on the sub-continent where a disproportionate number of ODIs are played (most especially in recent times) - it is possible that the sub-continental results have skewed the stats.

I seem to recall that batting under lights used to be considered pretty hard - at least in Australia. Have batsmen just gotten used to it?

Are there enough matches to permit separation into day matches, day/night (no dew), and day/night (with dew)?
[[
Tony,
Only the day/night information and not dew. I will incorporate that in the Toss related article I have mentioned (in response to Ankush).
Ananth:
]]

Posted by: Rishi at December 7, 2008 8:05 AM

I am glad you did this.
I did ask in the last blog of yours what was the average runs per wicket and I had a strong feeling (despite your comment) that as we went into 90s and beyond, runs per wicket came more easy. But, I admit, you were right, I was wrong.
Batsman have not gone better in terms of overall scoring per innings, just that they have been more effective per over rate.
For me, that itself sufficed the importance of this analysis. Good job.
[[
Almost all the rule changes have benefited the batsmen. It is not surprinsing that the batsmen have found it easy to up the scoring rate.
Who knows what Richards & company would have done with 20 overs of Power plays, free-hits, shorter boundaries,a very strict interpretation of wides et al.
Ananth:
]]

Posted by: dsachit at December 26, 2008 5:32 AM

If already not published, a team wise analysis(eg: Australia - overall run rates,strike rates etc...) would be great.

Posted by: Aditya at December 26, 2008 8:15 PM

"The percentage of (all out) innings below 100 follows a peculiar pattern. It’s very high during the two end periods and very low during one particular period (1996-2000). Frankly, I cannot explain the sub-2% figure."
There might be ? reasons for this might be :
As most of the sub 100 scores are made during the world cup the world cup of '96 was held in the subcontinent with real flat pitches (slow and unresponsive) so it was easier for the weaker teams to cross hundred as they might have been left in tatters by the opening spells by the fast bowlers and also the lesser number of minnows in the '99 world cup in comparison to the 2003 and 2007 world cup (as the pitches have considerably improved for batting in world cups from '96) and also the emergence of Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe as contenders in a match rather than minnows. the fielding restrictions were also fruitful from this period so this might have allowed some minnows to score quickly thereby crossing the 100 barrier.

Posted by: dc at January 3, 2009 6:24 AM

i believe the statistical analysis is wonderful yet i am surprised at some of the results. on the matter of the declining rate of run-outs i hypothesize that firstly in the 1980's, batsmen certainly near the end of an innings were expected to run for nearly everything, suicidal runs for byes and the will to sacrifice oneself for the good of the team was probably more prevalent then. when introducing the matter of third umpire referrals one must consider that with less controversy as replays were less conclusive during the early days of cricket, umpires may indeed be more inclined to raise the finger without the fear of scrutiny, whereby batsmen who actually made their ground were far more frequently given out, and the matter of this -- via commentary was that wrong decisions weren't criticized as replays didn't exist for umpires to rely on, therefore gave umpires free-will when raising the finger instead of referring it a colleague with dozens of cameras to look at the runout through

Name: Email Address:
Comments: characters left
Y Anantha Narayanan
Y Anantha NarayananY Anantha Narayanan has over 35 years of IT background. Over the past 15 years, he has been concentrating on Cricket analysis and software development. He has been involved with StumpVision, Wisden, Hallmark Software and his own site www.thirdslip.com during this period.
David Barry
David BarryDavid Barry was cricket-starved when teaching English in France, and study of cricket stats was his only way to stay sane. He is now back in Brisbane, Australia, and working towards a PhD in Physics. He once played for the worst team in the G-division of Muscat's cricket league.
Rajesh
RajeshRajesh After doing an MBA in marketing and working in an advertising agency, S Rajesh decided that his skills might be put to better use by number-crunching on cricket. He hasn’t regretted that decision in the last six years, and edits the Numbers Game column on cricinfo.com every Friday.
Rajesh Kumar
Rajesh KumarRajesh Kumar A product of Delhi's Shri Ram College of Commerce, Rajesh Kumar pursued cricket statistics at an early age before joining a nationalised bank, where he served for over two decades. He opted for a VRS nine years back, and hasn't regretted that decision. Apart from being a regular contributor to the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack over the years, Rajesh brought out five World Cup editions for Australia's Peter Murray. He has assisted Bill Frindall from 1980 till his death in January 2009 for the publications of various editions of The Wisden Book of Test Cricket, The Guinness Book of Cricket Facts and Feats, The Wisden Book of Cricket Records, Limited-Overs International Cricket and Playfair Cricket Annual.
Gabriel Rogers
Gabriel RogersGabriel Rogers was born on the ninety-somethingth birthday of Test cricket, and his fate may well have been sealed from that moment. His day-job revolves around medical statistics, and he is interested in applying principles from the field to the analysis of cricket data. Gabriel has spent most of his life in the south-west of England, but has recently moved to Manchester; he hasn't quite worked out yet whether living in a city with a Test ground is adequate compensation for moving away from his beloved Somerset CCC.
Ric Finlay
Ric FinlayRic Finlay Having just taken early retirement as a Mathematics teacher in Hobart, Ric Finlay now fully devotes his time to recording cricket, both past and present, for the popular CSW cricket database, along with his colleague David Fitzgerald (www.tastats.com.au). His interest in the game is inversely proportional to his ability as a player, but he did once score a century after being dropped at 3 and running out three of his team-mates. His first memory of international cricket is the 1962-63 MCC tour of Australia, described as one of the most boring ever. Totally fascinated, he was instantly hooked, and has never looked back. Author of three books on cricket of a historical nature, he has provided statistics and scored for radio and television cricket coverage since 1983.
Latest News
Specials
© ESPN EMEA Ltd