A number of readers had asked me to do a complete analysis of the Test team strengths. I had done some work on this earlier. However there is a need to throw out that lot and completely do this from scratch since the following related needs have been expressed at various times.

1. Completely integrate the career-to-date (c-t-d) values into the Team strength analysis.

2. Build in period based adjustments.

3. Allow no dilution into the process, especially the Bowling strength determination where a fifth weak bowler might completely distort the index values.

4. Give some weight for Bowling strike rates since these are Test matches.

Hence I blanked out the Team strength data and determined the Team strengths based on the following factors. By far, this turned out to be one of the most complex tasks undertaken by me since various adjustments had to be built in. The final selection of unique teams also presented quite a few problems.

1. Use only c-t-d values. Make adjustments during the early phase of the player's career. Essential for players like Mike Hussey, Brett Lee et al, whose first third of career was way better than the next two-third. I have been quite tough in this regard. During the first 50 innings or until 100 wickets have been captured, I have capped the c-t-d values at the career average, if it goes higher. Perfect example is Hussey. He had an average of 86.33 at the end of his 30th innings. But this has been capped at 52.50, which is his career average. Brett Lee had captured his first 50 wickets at 22.82. This has been increased to 30.82, which is his career average. I know it is quite tough on these players. However this has ensured that there are no spikes.

2. Determine the best 7 batsmen and use these batsmen figures to determine the Batting strength. This is to take care of night-watchman situations and genuine cases where the no.8 batsman in the batting order is better than the no.7 batsmen. The lower four batsmen are thus excluded. They might turn to be useful but do not really add to the strength.

3. After a lot deliberation I decided to do the Bowling strength determination with the best four bowlers only and not bring into consideration the fifth bowler. Traditionally most strong teams have had 6 batsmen, a keeper and 4 bowlers. The fifth bowler only provided additional support but the team's bowling success really depended on their top four bowlers.

4. There is no separate weight for all-rounders since the top all-rounders would find their place into either the top-7 batting or top-4 bowling or both. If Imran Khan bats at no.7, he brings to the table a 37+ batting average and sub-23 bowling average. That is his strength and will be reflected in the team strength index.

5. Do a period-wise adjustment. This is the one area where I have done something radically different and a complete change to the existing process. Until now I had done adjustment based on the adjustment factor for the decade (or period) in which the Test was played in. I was aware that this had the following major shortcomings.

- The adjustment is done based on the decade/period the Test was played in. However the player could have played during that decade, the previous and in some cased the previous one. So the adjustments are not perfect.
- The adjustment factor is the same whether the batsman is Tendulkar (22 year-career), Dravid (16 years), Yuvraj Singh (8 years) or Raina (1 year). Not exactly good and has to be improved significantly.

As I sat for hours on end watching the WC simulations rolling by in the desktop, I kept on fiddling with ideas and then one day I had a spark. I kept looking at Peer comparisons and then suddenly discovered that I had the solution staring at me. Why not adjust each batsman's career-to-date values dynamically and independently, with his own peer values. It was a natural process to zero down to an adjustment based on the Peer value for the batsman himself, in other words, from his debut test to the current test.

Easier said than done. However I set about creating database segments containing data values, such as batting average and bowling average for all teams, for each batsman, for each test he played in. Needless to say, the Batting averages were only for the best 7 batsmen in each test. Also the adjustment for each player will kick in only after he has played 10 matches since there is insufficient data in the early stages. The adjustment is done by determining the ratio of 35.99 (the all-time average of the best 7 batsmen in each innings for 1989 tests) to the concerned batsman's C-t-d Peer average. If the C-t-d Peer average is higher than 35.99 then it has been a batsman-friendly x-tests era and the ratio would be below 1.000. If the C-t-d Peer average is below 35.99 then it has been a bowler-friendly x-tests era and the ratio would be above 1.000. A similar working for the bowlers, for whom the all-time bowling average is 31.76.

It was impossible to split the, already complex, players's c-t-d peer bowling average into Pace and Spin. Hence I have done this based on a composite bowling average and done the bowling type adjustment at a later stage. The spinners have their bowling averaged lowered by a fixed factor.

It has worked beautifully. This allows for the changes which take place during a player's career. If there was a glut of runs during a phase of 2/3 years, it would be reflected instantly.

6. In view of the importance of Bowling strike rates in Test cricket I have computed the Team strike rates for the four best bowlers separately and multiplied the Team Bowling index by a pro-rated value based on this.

7. The adjustments are done separately for Pace bowlers and Spinners.

The last but very important point. After hours, nay days of struggling to make an equitable adjustment and exasperation, I decided to bite the bullet and exclude 64 Test matches played before 1900. The problem was mainly with bowlers. The 1800s were downright crazy. 10 bowlers, who had captured 50+ Test wickets, had averages below 20 and this distorted everything else. However it must be mentioned that very relevant players such as Clem Hill (1896), Trumper (1899) and S.F.Barnes (1901) are included. The only serious players we would miss out are Lohmann, S.E.Gregory and W.G.Grace. Lohmann, with his 100+ at 10+ single-handedly wrecked all analysis. Based on numbers, Lohmann was the greatest bowler ever, by a few miles, may his soul rest in peace.

Finally a note on the tables. Teams like the 1945 Australians, 2005 Australians, 1990 West Indies would have multiple entries in the table since quite a few of these teams were quite strong. Now that I would be using Career-todate values there would be changes from match to match even if the eleven remains the same. Hence I have extracted one representative and best team amongst this group and presented here a unique team table. This means even if there are 25 Australian teams of 2005-06 era, having almost the same team combinations, I will select one amongst these 25. However the team selected will be a real life team from a played Test. In other words there would be only one 1948 Australian team, one 2005 Australia team and so on. At the same time if two West Indian teams had radically different bowling line-ups, say 1980 and 1990, both have been included. Of course the complete table contains all the entries and can be downloaded.

While selecting the teams out of this collection of teams, I have followed the common-sense based principle that two bowling teams which have two of the four bowlers changed and the batting team which had 3 of the batsmen (out of seven) changed, will be considered different teams. The selection had to be manually done by me. While I have tried to be careful, it is not certain that I have included all teams qualifying. If readers note any misses, they are requested to inform me so I could include the same. I had also to do quite a bit of cutting and pasting. Hence there might be minor errors.

I have used two further criteria in selecting these teams. One is that the selected team should be in the top-100 in the concerned table. The other is that there should be a rough correlation to the population of teams in the top-100 while looking for as much representation as possible.

Let us now look at the tables. First the top-10 Batting teams of all time.

1. Australia:    49.81
MtId: 1661-2003      CtdAvg PeerAvg  Adj  FinalAvge
Gilchrist A.C         58.80  36.92  0.975  57.31
Hayden M.L            52.01  35.86  1.004  52.20
Waugh S.R             51.07  35.90  1.002  51.19
Ponting R.T           51.12  36.01  0.999  51.09
Martyn D.R            46.38  35.89  1.003  46.51
Langer J.L            45.86  35.90  1.002  45.97
Lehmann D.S           44.95  36.39  0.989  44.45

2. ICC XI:       49.67
MtId: 1768-2005
Dravid R              58.30  36.76  0.979  57.08
Kallis J.H            56.88  36.74  0.980  55.72
Lara B.C              54.09  36.50  0.986  53.34
Sehwag V              55.81  38.96  0.924  51.56
Smith G.C             55.50  38.94  0.924  51.29
Inzamam-ul-Haq        50.80  36.54  0.985  50.04
Flintoff A            33.43  37.32  0.964  32.24

3. Australia:    46.98
MtId: 0303-1948
Bradman D.G          101.39  38.24  0.941  95.43
Harvey R.N            43.58  42.51  1.000  43.58
Barnes S.G            50.00  41.64  0.864  43.22
Morris A.R            46.49  41.61  0.865  40.20
Hassett A.L           46.20  41.94  0.858  39.64
Miller K.R            36.97  39.64  0.908  33.57
Loxton S.J.E          33.24  40.72  1.000  33.24

4. England:      46.86
MtId: 0176-1928 
Hobbs J.B             61.28  33.22  1.083  66.39
Sutcliffe H           60.73  36.68  0.981  59.60
Mead C.P              49.38  33.88  1.062  52.46
Jardine D.R           43.20  26.37  1.000  43.20
Hendren E.H           43.03  36.26  0.993  42.71
Hammond W.R           35.35  30.26  1.000  35.35
Chapman A.P.F         28.91  36.68  0.981  28.37

5. Australia:    46.02
MtId: 0237-1934 
Bradman D.G           95.35  37.62  0.957  91.23
Woodfull W.M          46.00  37.08  0.971  44.65
McCabe S.J            42.27  35.95  1.001  42.32
Ponsford W.H          43.67  37.15  0.969  42.30
Brown W.A             37.16  42.59  1.000  37.16
Kippax A.F            36.12  36.81  0.978  35.32
Chipperfield A.G      29.22  42.59  1.000  29.22

6. India:        45.87
MtId: 1964-2010 
Tendulkar S.R         55.57  37.25  0.966  53.69
Dravid R              53.75  37.59  0.957  51.46
Gambhir G             54.86  38.93  0.924  50.72
Sehwag V              53.53  39.18  0.919  49.17
Laxman V.V.S          46.64  37.62  0.957  44.62
Dhoni M.S             42.60  39.48  0.912  38.83
Yuvraj Singh          35.63  39.28  0.916  32.65

7. West Indies:  45.76
MtId: 0544-1963 
Sobers G.St.A         60.95  33.30  1.081  65.87
Worrell F.M.M         53.41  34.40  1.046  55.88
Kanhai R.B            48.75  35.29  1.020  49.72
Hunte C.C             44.30  35.08  1.026  45.45
Butcher B.F           43.11  34.97  1.029  44.37
Solomon J.S           34.00  35.05  1.027  34.92
McMorris EDAStJ       24.17  34.78  1.000  24.17

8. Australia:    45.54
MtId: 1863-2008 
Ponting R.T           58.02  37.03  0.972  56.39
Hayden M.L            53.20  36.83  0.977  51.99
Hussey M.E.K          51.10  38.36  0.938  47.94
Gilchrist A.C         47.90  37.86  0.951  45.53
Clarke M.J            44.79  37.70  0.955  42.76
Symonds A             40.61  38.22  0.942  38.24
Jaques P.A            36.00  38.49  1.000  36.00

9.West Indies:   44.96
MtId: 0405-1955 
EdeC Weekes           58.62  35.24  1.021  59.87
Walcott C.L           56.69  35.24  1.021  57.90
Worrell F.M.M         49.49  35.01  1.028  50.87
Sobers G.St.A         42.75  28.67  1.000  42.75
Stollmeyer J.B        42.33  35.76  1.006  42.61
Holt jnr J.K          33.08  31.25  1.000  33.08
Atkinson D.S.t.E      26.67  34.71  1.037  27.65

10. West Indies: 44.69    
MtId: 1006-1984 
Richards I.V.A        53.98  35.43  1.016  54.84
Greenidge C.G         49.69  35.43  1.016  50.48
Gomes H.A             46.44  35.10  1.025  47.62
Lloyd C.H             46.60  35.87  1.003  46.76
Richardson R.B        43.15  36.78  0.979  42.23
Haynes D.L            39.08  35.31  1.019  39.83
Dujon P.J.L           31.94  36.93  0.975  31.13

As expected the table is headed by the 2003 Australian team. One sentence describes this team. Gilchrist, the best batsman in this test, batted at no.7 !!! The purists might scoff and say that the next team was a disparate set of talented individuals. But the second place is taken by the ICC XI which played Australia during 2005. This team might not have had Tendulkar. It still boasted of 6 top batsmen with a 50+ average.

Now comes the mighty Australians in Bradman's farewell test during 1948. Let us not forget that they had Lindwall, with his 2 centuries yet to come, at no.8. This, despite Bradman's 101.39, his average at the beginning of the test, being reduced by 6%. England, of vintage 1928, with Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hammond, clocks in next. A slightly different Australians of 1934 are the next team. As compared to the 1948 team, this team had only Bradman.

In sixth place is the 2010 Indian team. As in the first team, this team had Dhoni at no.7, the statement which defines the batting strength admirably. The West Indian team of 1963, with Sobers, Kanhai, Butcher and Solomon, is in seventh place. In eigth place is the recent Australian team, with Hussey, Clarke and Symonds.

The table is rounded off by two West Indian teams of different ages. The 1955 West Indian team, with Sobers and the three W's is in ninth place. The table is rounded off by the Richards-led West Indies team of 1984. Not one of these 10 teams is out of place and almost all top batsmen of the world, barring Gavaskar, Kallis, Chappell, May, Compton, are represented.

Now for the best bowling teams.

1. West Indies:  49.89
MtId: 1158-1990
Marshall M.D          20.72  31.97  0.993  20.58  46.8
Bishop I.R            24.29  34.49  0.921  22.37  52.3
Ambrose C.E.L         23.97  33.11  0.959  22.99  54.6
Walsh C.A             23.91  32.84  0.967  23.13  57.9

2. Australia:    49.85
MtId: 0373-1953
Lindwall R.R          20.31  32.38  0.981  19.93  59.9
Miller K.R            20.50  32.38  0.981  20.11  61.5
Johnston W.A          22.02  31.93  0.957  21.07  69.1
Davidson A.K          24.64  19.42  1.000  24.64  74.8

3. West Indies:  49.53
MtId: 1068-1987
Marshall M.D          21.23  31.63  1.004  21.32  46.8
Garner J              21.17  31.27  1.016  21.50  50.9
Holding M.A           23.29  31.32  1.014  23.62  50.9
Walsh C.A             25.16  32.80  0.968  24.36  57.9

4. England:      48.48
MtId: 0434-1956
Tyson F.H             18.57  27.31  1.163  21.59  45.4
Laker J.C             21.50  30.42  1.004  21.59  62.3
Wardle J.H            22.24  30.29  1.009  22.44  64.7
Statham J.B           24.85  28.89  1.099  27.31  63.7

5. West Indies:  47.91
MtId: 0901-1981
Garner J              19.44  29.38  1.081  21.02  50.9
Croft C.E.H           21.19  29.38  1.081  22.91  49.3
Roberts A.M.E         25.18  30.28  1.049  26.41  55.1
Holding M.A           25.13  29.95  1.060  26.65  50.9

6. Australia:    47.87
MtId: 1731-2005
McGrath G.D           21.40  32.42  0.980  20.96  52.0
Warne S.K             25.50  32.39  0.943  24.06  57.5
Gillespie J.N         24.90  32.70  0.971  24.18  55.0
MacGill S.C.G         29.22  32.85  0.930  27.18  54.0

7. England:      47.50
MtId: 0881-1980
Botham I.T            18.69  30.28  1.049  19.61  57.0
Underwood D.L         25.30  31.47  0.971  24.56  73.6
Willis R.G.D          24.78  31.79  0.999  24.76  53.4
Hendrick M            25.84  30.85  1.029  26.60  71.4

8. South Africa: 46.99
MtId: 1860-2008
Pollock S.M           23.19  32.98  0.963  22.33  57.8
Steyn D.W             24.08  34.16  0.930  22.39  40.0
Ntini M               27.88  33.34  0.953  26.56  53.4
Nel A                 31.34  34.56  0.919  28.80  62.0

9. Pakistan:     46.80
MtId: 1158-1990
Waqar Younis          23.56  34.25  0.927  21.85  43.5
Imran Khan            22.87  31.91  0.995  22.76  53.8
Wasim Akram           25.10  32.86  0.967  24.26  54.7
Abdul Qadir           32.54  31.80  0.961  31.26  72.6

10. Australia:   46.41
MtId: 0765-1975
Lillee D.K            23.73  33.46  0.949  22.52  52.0
Mallett A.A           26.15  32.29  0.946  24.74  75.7
Walker M.H.N          27.48  33.50  0.948  26.05  73.1
Thomson J.R           28.01  33.50  0.948  26.55  52.7

There is a mild surprise at the top. the West Indian attack of 1990, comprising of the magnificent quartet of Marshall, Bishop, Ambrose and Walsh is ahead, by the thinnest of margins, of the 1953 Australian team, with its four top-quality bowlers, Lindwall, Miller, Johnston and Davidson. It is necessary to mention that West Indies is ahead only because of the superior strike rate index and that Davidson is not credited with his career bowling average, this test falling in his initial tests stage. Now comes another wonderful West Indian quartet from 1987, Marshall, Garner, Holding and Walsh.

Then comes the first of two English bowlins attack in this list, the 1956 foursome of Tyson, Laker, Wardle and Statham. Just behind them is the wholly different Caribbean pace quartet of Garner, Croft, Roberts and Holding, of vintage 1981.

The Australian batsmen have dominated the tables. However they also had top class attacks. The modern Australian attack is the one during 2005 and had McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and MacGill. Two attacking fast bowlers, a world class spinner and an excellent medium pacer complete the second English team of Botham, Underwood, Willis and Hendrick.

The fearsome South African pace attack of Pollock, Steyn, Ntini and Nel comes in next. Now the most balanced attack in this list, each a giant bowler, of Waqar, Imran, Akram and Qadir. The top-10 list is rounded off by the classical Australian attack of 1975, comparing of Lillee, Mallet, Walker and Thomson.

The Indian attacks miss out since they never had four really world class bowlers together. Even with adjustments, spin-dominated attacks, with averages between 25 and 30 are unlikely to fare well. For the record, the best Indian bowling attack was the one which played Test# 1782 (during 2006), with 42.39 points. The attack comprised of Kumble, Zaheer, Harbhajan and R.P.Singh. Same applies to New Zealand and Sri Lanka, Hadlee and Muralitharan notwithstanding.

Now the top-10 teams of all time.

MtId: 1744-2005 Australia   : 95.34 (48.28+47.06)
Langer J.L
Hayden M.L
Ponting R.T
Martyn D.R
Clarke M.J
Gillespie J.N
Katich S.M
Gilchrist A.C
Warne S.K
Kasprowicz M.S
McGrath G.D

MtId: 1768-2005 ICC World XI: 93.00 (49.67+43.33)
Smith G.C
Sehwag V
Dravid R
Lara B.C
Kallis J.H
Inzamam-ul-Haq
Flintoff A
Boucher M.V
Vettori D.L
Harmison S.J
Muralitharan M

MtId: 0999-1984 West Indies : 91.80 (44.36+47.44)
Greenidge C.G
Haynes D.L
Richardson R.B
Gomes H.A
Richards I.V.A
Dujon P.J.L
Lloyd C.H
Marshall M.D
Holding M.A
Garner J
Walsh C.A

MtId: 0300-1948 Australia   : 91.74 (45.41+46.33)
Barnes S.G
Morris A.R
Bradman D.G
Hassett A.L
Miller K.R
Brown W.A
Johnson I.W
Tallon D
Lindwall R.R
Johnston W.A
Toshack E.R.H

MtId: 1539-2001 Australia   : 91.20 (44.60+46.60)
Slater M.J
Hayden M.L
Langer J.L
Waugh M.E
Waugh S.R
Ponting R.T
Gilchrist A.C
Warne S.K
Gillespie J.N
Miller C.R
McGrath G.D

MtId: 1824-2006 Australia   : 90.21 (44.49+45.72)
Langer J.L
Hayden M.L
Lee B
Ponting R.T
Hussey M.E.K
Clarke M.J
Symonds A
Gilchrist A.C
Warne S.K
Clark S.R
McGrath G.D

MtId: 0222-1933 Australia   : 89.20 (44.55+44.65)
Fingleton J.H.W
Woodfull W.M
Bradman D.G
McCabe S.J
Ponsford W.H
Richardson V.Y
Oldfield W.A.S
Grimmett C.V
Wall T.W
O'Reilly W.J
Ironmonger H

MtId: 1319-1995 Australia   : 88.44 (43.62+44.82)
Slater M.J
Taylor M.A
Boon D.C
Waugh M.E
Waugh S.R
Ponting R.T
Healy I.A
Reiffel P.R
Warne S.K
McDermott C.J
McGrath G.D

MtId: 0530-1962 England     : 87.98 (42.89+45.09)

Pullar G
Cowdrey M.C
Dexter E.R
Graveney T.W
Barrington K.F
Parfitt P.H
Allen D.A
Millman G
Lock G.A.R
Trueman F.S
Statham J.B

MtId: 1168-1991 West Indies : 87.87 (40.12+47.75)
Greenidge C.G
Haynes D.L
Richardson R.B
Hooper C.L
Logie A.L
Richards I.V.A
Dujon P.J.L
Marshall M.D
Ambrose C.E.L
Walsh C.A
Patterson B.P

The best team table is dominated by six Australian teams down the ages, led by the 2005 Australian team, with very strong Batting and Bowling sub-teams. This is followed by Australian teams of 1948, 2001, 2006, 1933 and 1995. The second position is occupied by the very strong ICC Eleven, very strong on paper, poor on the field. West Indies has two teams, from 1983 and 1991. England has a single representative team, from 1962.

For the record, the strongest teams from the other countries are given below.

South Africa Test# 1860 (2008) against West Indies, with 86.24 points. 
India        Test# 1782 (2006) against Pakistan,    with 84.96 points. 
Pakistan     Test# 1443 (1999) against India,       with 84.92 points. 
Sri Lanka    Test# 1691 (2004) against Australia,   with 83.28 points. 
New Zealand  Test# 1700 (2004) against England,     with 78.14 points. 
Zimbabwe     Test# 1511 (2000) against New Zealand, with 66.64 points. 
Bangladesh   Test# 1905 (2009) against Sri Lanka,   with 54.60 points. 

To view/down-load the complete Team Strength related tables, please click on links given below.

Batting strength table: please click/right-click here.
Bowler strength table: please click/right-click here.
Team strength table: please click/right-click here.

I would like to inform the readers that I will be taking a month off to handle range of commitments I have during the World Cup. As things stand, I will be back after the completion of World Cup.

The tenth edition of the World Cup is not far away. In my last article I looked at the previous 9 World Cups from an alternate analysis point of view. In this article I will look at the ensuing World Cup, similarly from an analytical point of view.

For this article I have used some of the results of the proprietary work on recent form and match simulation I have done for a company which has a web presence exclusively for Cricket. As such I will not be presenting any detailed tables but refer to the conclusions extracted from those. I request readers to kindly bear with me. There are contractual restrictions to be observed.

The cornerstone of this analysis is the Team Strength index (TSI) of the participating teams. This index has been extracted using a complex process which involves the following.

- An estimated Final XI.
- The career figures of selected players.
- The recent form of players, bowling and batting.

The base TSI is determined using the following data.

- Career Runs per innings, after excluding single-digit not outs.
- Career Strike rate.
- Career Bowling strike rate- Balls per wicket.
- Career bowling accuracy - Runs per over.
- Recent Form Runs per innings, after excluding single-digit not outs.
- Recent Form Strike rate.
- Recent Form Bowling strike rate- Balls per wicket.
- Recent Form bowling accuracy - Runs per over.

The teams have been selected by me based on the assumption that ALL the players would be available and would be injury-free. Key players such as Tendulkar, Sehwag, Gambhir, Ponting, Collingwood, Bresnan, Kallis, Vettori and a few others have injury concerns. If these players do not play, the numbers would change as also the predictions. Mike Hussey and Eoin Morgan are already out. The teams concerned have already gone down in strength.

The recent form encompasses the last 10 innings played or last 10 spells bowled, provided these have been played on or after 1 January 2009. Most players have done this during 2010 itself. However someone like Tendulkar has played 2 innings in 2011 and 2 in 2010 and I had to go back one more year. 2009 performances are weighted slightly lower. Runs per Innings makes more sense than Batting average especially since recent form has to be considered. 3 not outs out of 10 distorts the recent form a lot. The weight for recent form numbers as against career numbers is decided based on the number of career matches played. The career figures have the highest weight of 75% if the player has played more than 100 matches. The recent form numbers become more significant if the player has played fewer matches.

After the base TSI is determined it is further adjusted based on the following three factors.

- The recent form of the teams - results, margins, venues et al.
- The venue of the matches (to decide on home/familiarity measures).
- The team performances in the two recent World Cups (2003 and 2007). This will enable us to assign due weight to the manner in which big-matches and big-stage have been handled. Going back beyond 2003 is not right since most of those players would have retired.

Recent form of teams: The recent form of teams considers the last 20 matches played by the team, provided these have been played on or after 1 January 2009. Most teams have done this during 2010 itself. The results are analyzed from results (wins/ties/losses) point of view and the match venue (home/neutral/away) point of view. In addition the margins of wins is incorporated. Finally, unlike the batsmen/bowler recent form calculations, the team numbers are determined based on the recent matches only. Needless to say, the West Indian successes of the 1970s should have no bearing on the chances of today's West Indies. The form related changes work out to around 3% on either side of 100.

Match venue factor: India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have been assigned a 2.5% benefit value for playing at home. Pakistan has a 1.25% benefit for playing in familiar sub-continent conditions.

Recent World Cup form: Upto 2% is allotted for this factor. A simple one based on the performances of teams in the recent two World Cups. Australia gets 2% (2 wins), Sri Lanka gets 0.75% (One final and one semi-final), India gets 0.50% (one final), New Zealand gets 0.35% (one semi-final and one super-six) and so on.

These numbers might seem arbitrary. However these have been arrived at after lot of trial runs. Moreover the benefit cannot be made greater than these since these numbers are used for simulation which is very sensitive to these numbers.

The recent form tables are listed below. It should be noted that the actual match team strength of India in its inaugural match against Bangladesh will be slightly lower since they would be playing "away" and Bangladesh would be playing at "home". Similarly actual match team strength of Sri Lanka in its match against New Zealand will be very slightly lower since both of them would be playing at "neutral" venue.

Team         BtIdx BwIdx TmIdx LocAdj RF_Adj Wc_Adj BtIdx BwIdx TmIdx

India        31.25 28.16 59.41 1.0250 1.0220 1.0050 32.89 29.65 62.54
South Africa 29.20 30.81 60.01 1.0000 1.0290 1.0025 30.12 31.78 61.91
Sri Lanka    24.30 33.79 58.09 1.0250 1.0300 1.0075 25.85 35.94 61.79
Australia    27.90 30.01 57.90 1.0000 1.0120 1.0200 28.80 30.97 59.77
Pakistan     23.98 27.16 51.14 1.0125 0.9990 1.0000 24.26 27.48 51.73
England      23.55 27.50 51.05 1.0000 1.0050 1.0010 23.69 27.67 51.35
Bangladesh   20.88 26.04 46.92 1.0250 0.9970 1.0010 21.36 26.64 48.00
West Indies  22.61 24.43 47.04 1.0000 0.9820 1.0010 22.23 24.01 46.24
New Zealand  20.70 24.81 45.50 1.0000 0.9670 1.0035 20.08 24.07 44.16
Ireland      17.60 22.86 40.47 1.0000 1.0160 1.0010 17.90 23.25 41.16
Zimbabwe     14.85 23.80 38.65 1.0000 0.9880 1.0010 14.69 23.54 38.23
Netherlands  12.02 17.50 29.52 1.0000 1.0020 1.0000 12.04 17.53 29.58
Canada       13.73 15.91 29.64 1.0000 0.9930 1.0000 13.64 15.80 29.43
Kenya        13.75 15.61 29.35 1.0000 0.9740 1.0025 13.42 15.24 28.66

It should be noted that the table would look different if the World Cup was going to be played outside, say South Africa. The pace bowlers would get back their potency. But the difference would probably be no more than 5%.

Not so surprising that India leads the team strength table, albeit by a hairsbreadth, closely followed by Sri Lanka, South Africa and Australia. India has the best batting lineup amongst all, and good bowling strength. Sri Lanka has the best bowling credentials, not matched by the batting. South Africa is placed high in both areas. Australia is also similarly placed. Their top quality pace bowling makes up for their average spin bowling. England, weakened by the loss of a key player and their indifferent form and Pakistan, with the loss of two key bowlers and their inability to play at home, are in the middle. Bangladesh, New Zealand and West Indies are in the third group. Ireland is very good, but is probably out of its league. Zimbabwe has an excellent spin attack but their batting is pathetic. Netherlands has one truly world class player. Canada, with an almost wholly expatriate team, are here to fill up the numbers.

The recent form of South Africa, Australia and Sri Lanka has been excellent. India and Pakistan have kept their heads above water. England's form was the best until recently. Unfortunately the Australian disaster reversed this. The other way around for Australia. The recent form of West Indies and New Zealand has been awful.

Now to the groups.

Team         BtIdx BwIdx TmIdx LocAdj RF_Adj Wc_Adj BtIdx BwIdx TmIdx

Group A

Sri Lanka    24.30 33.79 58.09 1.0250 1.0300 1.0075 25.85 35.94 61.79
Australia    27.90 30.01 57.90 1.0000 1.0120 1.0200 28.80 30.97 59.77
Pakistan     23.98 27.16 51.14 1.0125 0.9990 1.0000 24.26 27.48 51.73
New Zealand  20.70 24.81 45.50 1.0000 0.9670 1.0035 20.08 24.07 44.16
Zimbabwe     14.85 23.80 38.65 1.0000 0.9880 1.0010 14.69 23.54 38.23
Canada       13.73 15.91 29.64 1.0000 0.9930 1.0000 13.64 15.80 29.43
Kenya        13.75 15.61 29.35 1.0000 0.9740 1.0025 13.42 15.24 28.66

Group B

India        31.25 28.16 59.41 1.0250 1.0220 1.0050 32.89 29.65 62.54
South Africa 29.20 30.81 60.01 1.0000 1.0290 1.0025 30.12 31.78 61.91
England      23.55 27.50 51.05 1.0000 1.0050 1.0010 23.69 27.67 51.35
Bangladesh   20.88 26.04 46.92 1.0250 0.9970 1.0010 21.36 26.64 48.00
West Indies  22.61 24.43 47.04 1.0000 0.9820 1.0010 22.23 24.01 46.24
Ireland      17.60 22.86 40.47 1.0000 1.0160 1.0010 17.90 23.25 41.16
Netherlands  12.02 17.50 29.52 1.0000 1.0020 1.0000 12.04 17.53 29.58

Group A has an average Team strength value of 44.82, considerably lower than the other group. However this is the clearer group in that the top four teams are going to encounter very little opposition from Zimbabwe, Canada and Kenya are likely to share 3 wins amongst themselves. It would be a momentous upset if they defeat any of the top four teams. The team strength numbers substantiate this conclusion. These three teams are more than 15% away from the lowest placed of the top four teams. The order is quite difficult to predict. Let us say Sri Lanka, Australia, Pakistan and New Zealand qualify, in some order or other.

Group B is quite difficult to predict and is fraught with possibilities. The average team strength is 48.68, around 7-8% higher than the other group. However the dark horse is Bangladesh. They have a team strength which is understandably and justifiably higher than West Indies. They are the only team which would be playing all their matches at home. India and Sri Lanka play one match away. So there is a very good chance (I would put it as high as 50%) of Bangladesh winning three matches. That should put them in with a great chance of qualifying. So there is a good chance that one of the top four teams would miss out. That seems likely to be West Indies. Also note that Ireland are also quite strong. So let us say India, South Africa, England and Bangladesh, the order of the top three uncertain.

What happens afterwards is almost a lottery. The team which has three great days would win the cup, that is all. The two teams which have very little chance of having three great days are Bangladesh and New Zealand and should be ruled out. Out of the other six, England and Pakistan are likely to have two great days, but probably not three. So this leaves us with the four teams, India, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Australia. It could be any one of these four.

I can hear some readers saying that this is what everyone and their neighbour's cat is saying. However my statement is based on the fact that I have done complete simulation of the World Cup a few thousands of times. But as I have already mentioned, that is proprietary information for my client. Hence I am not able to divulge that information, until it is published. I can only say that these four teams are closely bunched together and, as a group, have around 80-85% chance of winning the World Cup. Pakistan and England follow next. The readers can draw their own inferences. The final simulation results show a very high degree of correlation with the Team strength values.

To view/down-load the list of selected players for each team, please click/right-click here.

Finally a request to the readers.

This is a World Cup played between 14 teams and 210 players. About half of these players would have fond expectations of winning and reaping the rich rewards. They would like to win the World Cup for themselves and their countries. It is quite unlikely that they do it for some other player in their team, however great the player might be. So let us stay out of this "win for Jayawardene" or "win for Tendulkar" or "win for Kallis" etc. Let your comments be centred around the teams not individuals. In this analysis, as in real life, the 11 players bring with them their performance-related numbers and contribute to the Team Strength. Then it is the team which performs together.

The tenth edition of the World Cup is not far away. Over the next 10 days, I will first do a review of the nine World Cups so far and then a preview of the World Cup 2011. I will try to do something different to what is already available easily in public domain.

If you wanted to know the number of runs scored at what average or wickets captured with attendant details, you only have to go to the excellent Cricinfo World Cup section or peruse Madhu Ramakrishnan's excellent article in this blog. One click will let you know that Tendulkar has scored 1796 runs at 57.93 or that Muralitharan, with 53 wickets, needs 19 wickets to overtake McGrath and so on. What I have attempted to do is to add some weight to these runs and wickets. Also I wanted to do a different type of Team performance analysis.

During the first four World Cups, the teams played an initial round-robin, with four groups, and then the knock-out rounds of semi finals and final. The only difference being the double-leg round-robin during 1983 and 1987. During 1992 the format changed slightly. The teams played in a single group, they played a round-robin before the semi finals and final. Each of the The next four world cups had a different format. 1992 was an an excellent format.

The 1996 edition had a format exactly identical to the forthcoming world cup. 2 groups, quarter finals, semi finals and final. This is also a very good format since it requires teams to have three consecutive wins to win the world cup, not two. The only difference is that the 1996 edition had 12 teams and the 2011 edition will have 14 teams. The 1999 and 2003 editions had preliminary league, super-six group, semi finals and finals. Both were similar except that more teams participated in the 2003 event. There was yet another change for the unwieldy 2007 event. There was a preliminary 4-group league, a super eights, semi finals and final.

The reason I have taken the trouble of describing the formats is to clarify my weighting process. Despite the format variations, there has been a common feature at the start and end of the tournaments. There have been preliminary leagues at the start and semi finals and final at the end. In between, we have had super sixes, super eights and quarter finals. So I have decided to weight the matches in the following groups to do a weighted runs/wickets/team performances analysis.

The weighting of performances is done based on the WHEN factor since the matches become more significant as we come to the later stages. As far as opposition quality is concerned, it is my firm opinion that this becomes irrelevant in a knock-out match. There is no way I am going to treat Tendulkar's 83 or Ganguly's 111 scored in the 2003 semi final at a lower level, since their innings helped India reach the final. Else India might have lost to Kenya.

As far as preliminary matches are concerned, I am not going to lower the weight for matches against weaker teams. Every match in a World Cup is important. India and Pakistan in 2007 WC are living examples of being derailed by losing the preliminary matches against weaker teams. So all preliminary matches will have a weight of 100%.

Preliminary league matches: 100%
Super six matches:          110%
Super eight matches:        110%
Quarter-Finals:             112.5% 
Semi Finals:                125%
Finals:                     150%
Note: The Quarter Finals have a slightly higher weight because of the knock-out 
nature of the concerned match.

I am sure readers would point out that there have been important matches in the preliminary leagues and deserve a higher weight. However I am not going to take that route. Then other questions will come in, especially for early matches. How important was Kapil Dev's 175 or Tendulkar's 98 ? What would have happened if India had lost ? Did they still have a chance ? So many other match, group and tournament related conditions would have to be considered. There is also no way to automate these factors. Each match has to be considered manually. Hence I have taken a reasonably sound weight pattern. Maybe at the end of the 2011 World Cup I would probably do a more in-depth analysis of the 10 world cups, incorporating a few more relevant factors also, including match status, support, bowling quality and importance of matches.

The team performance analysis is done in two ways. The first is a straight-forward analysis of the matches played, wins achieved, no-result and lost matches and does a simple % performance achievement. Let us see this table first.

Team         Mats  W  NR   L  <-Points->    %
                              Max   Base

Australia     69  51   1  17  138  103.0  74.6
South Africa  40  25   2  13   80   52.0  65.0
West Indies   57  35   1  21  114   71.0  62.3
England       59  36   1  22  118   73.0  61.9
New Zealand   62  35   1  26  124   71.0  57.3
India         58  32   1  25  116   65.0  56.0
Pakistan      56  30   2  24  112   62.0  55.4
Sri Lanka     57  25   2  30  114   52.0  45.6
Kenya         23   6   1  16   46   13.0  28.3
Ireland        9   2   1   6   18    5.0  27.8
Bangladesh    20   5   1  14   40   11.0  27.5
Zimbabwe      45   8   4  33   90   20.0  22.2
U.A.E.         5   1   0   4   10    2.0  20.0
Netherlands   14   2   0  12   28    4.0  14.3
Canada        12   1   0  11   24    2.0   8.3
Scotland       8   0   0   8   16    0.0   0.0
Namibia        6   0   0   6   12    0.0   0.0
East Africa    3   0   0   3    6    0.0   0.0
Bermuda        3   0   0   3    6    0.0   0.0

No one is going to win the Nobel Prize for predicting the best performer. Australia have been the out-performer amongst all countries. They have won 51 of the 69 matches and have an outstanding % achievement of 74.6. Despite their hiccups at crucial times, South Africa are next with 65.0%. They are followed by West Indies with 62.3%. England (3 finals) and New Zealand come in next because of their overall consistency. India is only in sixth position, not surprising in view of their very poor performance in four of the world cups so far (1975, 1979, 1992 and 2007). Similarly Pakistan and Sri Lanka have had up and down rides during the world cups.

In the second Team performance table, I have weighted the results by the Match index already explained. In other words a team winning the world cup would get 3 points (2 x 1.50) for the match, the winner of the semi final will get 2.5 (2.0 x 1.25) and so on. Thus the importance of the match is reflected strongly.

Team         Mats  WC  WC  <-Points->    %
                  Wins RU  Max   Wted

Australia     69    4   2  138  130.4  94.5
West Indies   57    2   1  114   82.8  72.7
South Africa  40    0   0   80   55.6  69.5
England       59    0   3  118   79.3  67.2
India         58    1   1  116   74.1  63.9
Pakistan      56    1   1  112   68.6  61.2
New Zealand   62    0   0  124   74.6  60.2
Sri Lanka     57    1   1  114   61.7  54.2
Ireland        9    0   0   18    5.6  31.1
Kenya         23    0   0   46   13.6  29.6
Bangladesh    20    0   0   40   11.6  29.0
Zimbabwe      45    0   0   90   20.0  22.2
U.A.E.         5    0   0   10    2.0  20.0
Netherlands   14    0   0   28    4.0  14.3
Canada        12    0   0   24    2.0   8.3
Scotland       8    0   0   16    0.0   0.0
Namibia        6    0   0   12    0.0   0.0
East Africa    3    0   0    6    0.0   0.0
Bermuda        3    0   0    6    0.0   0.0

Australia, with their 4 WC wins and 2 finals, are the runaway leader with 94.5%. Incidentally I have kept the base the same as last table to get a clear idea of the outliers. Then some churning takes place. West Indies, with 2 wins and 1 final, move to second place. South Africa only moves down a place, despite having never even reached the final. Similarly India, with their 1 win and 1 final, are in fifth place.

Now for the batting table, with incorporation of weight of matches.

Cty Player                <--Runs-->  Wt %
                            WC  Wted

Ind Tendulkar S.R         1796  1852  103.1
Aus Ponting R.T           1537  1722  112.0
Win Lara B.C              1225  1265  103.3
Aus Gilchrist A.C         1085  1257  115.9
Slk Jayasuriya S.T        1165  1241  106.5
Slk de Silva P.A          1064  1149  108.0
Pak Javed Miandad         1083  1147  105.9
Win Richards I.V.A        1013  1131  111.6
Nzl Fleming S.P           1075  1123  104.5
Saf Gibbs H.H             1067  1122  105.2
Aus Hayden M.L             987  1080  109.4
Ind Ganguly S.C           1006  1061  105.5
Aus Waugh M.E             1004  1059  105.5
Aus Waugh S.R              978  1036  105.9
Slk Ranatunga A            969  1003  103.5
Eng Gooch G.A              897   989  110.3
Saf Kallis J.H             923   975  105.6
Pak Saeed Anwar            915   971  106.1
Nzl Crowe M.D              880   902  102.5
Ind Dravid R               860   900  104.7

The average performances of India during recent world cups has meant that Tendulkar has played few high valued key matches and has not done very well in late stage matches. This is reflected in the wt % of only 103.1. Ponting, on the other hand, with his three wins, has his runs increased by 12%. Lara matches Tendulkar's lack of success with 3.3%. These three are the leading run-scorers in any case. However look at Gilchrist. A whopping 15.9% increase, the highest for any batsman. He has leap-frogged over Jayasuriya. Note how Richards also has got a 11.6% increase, with his two wins and third final. The significance of this % values is that it is possible to conclude that, other things not considered, on average, the runs scored by Gilchrist were 15.9% more valuable, while those scored by Fleming were 4.5%. Since I am keeping the minimum weight as 100%, these numbers tell quite a story.

The batsmen with the 10 highest weight % are given below. There are no surprises that the Australians and West Indians have dominated this list since they have won 6 world cups between them. However note Sehwag's and Gooch's over achievement. Gilchrist, Ponting and Richards are the significant batsmen in this list.

Win 0067 Lloyd C.H              393   463  117.8
Aus 0932 Gilchrist A.C         1085  1257  115.9
Aus 0715 Martyn D.R             352   405  115.1
Aus 0818 Ponting R.T           1537  1722  112.0
Ind 1210 Sehwag V               463   518  111.9
Aus 0784 Bevan M.G              537   600  111.7
Win 0148 Richards I.V.A        1013  1131  111.6
Win 0068 Kallicharran A.I       251   279  111.2
Slk 1251 Sangakkara K.C         526   584  111.0
Eng 0169 Gooch G.A              897   989  110.3

It must be remembered that while it is the team effort to reach the later stages, only if the player performs well in the later stages does he get credit with higher weighted runs/wickets. If a player does well in the earlier matches but fails in the key matches later, he does not get additional credit. A perfect example is Hayden, who despite his two WC wins, has not performed at his high standards in the later stages. His increase is only 9.4%.

Cty Player                <--Wkts-->  Wt %
                           WC  Wted

Aus McGrath G.D            71  78.6  110.7
Pak Wasim Akram            55  58.3  106.0
Slk Muralitharan M         53  56.8  107.2
Slk Vaas WPUJC             49  52.1  106.3
Ind Srinath J              44  46.2  105.0
Saf Donald A.A             38  39.6  104.2
Aus Hogg G.B               34  37.1  109.3
Aus Warne S.K              32  36.6  114.2
Pak Imran Khan             34  35.5  104.4
Saf Pollock S.M            31  33.1  106.8
Nzl Harris C.Z             32  32.5  101.4
Eng Botham I.T             30  32.2  107.5
Nzl Bond S.E               30  31.9  106.5
Ind Kumble A               31  31.8  102.6
Slk Jayasuriya S.T         27  30.2  111.9
Ind Kapil Dev N            28  29.8  106.2
Eng DeFreitas P.A.J        29  29.5  101.7
Win Roberts A.M.E          26  29.0  111.5
Aus McDermott C.J          27  28.8  106.5
Aus Waugh S.R              27  28.7  106.3

McGrath has his haul of 71 wickets increased to 78.6 with his multiple world cup wins. All the top three bowlers have maintained their positions since their world cup performances are good. In fact the only change is that Warne has moved above Imran Khan because of his outstanding world cup performances during 1999.

The bowlers with the 10 highest weight % are given below. There are no surprises that the Australians and West Indians have dominated this. Gilmour is here because he hit the zone in two very important matches, the 1975 semi final and final. Garner delivered in 1979. Note also Harbhajan's performance, although with only 11 wickets. Warne is the most significant of the bowlers listed here because of his haul of 32 wickets. The bowlers' % increases are much higher than the batsmen since their outlying performances are way above the average performances. 6 wickets as against a normal of 2 as compared with a century against a normal of 50.

Aus 0089 Gilmour G.J            11  15.0  136.4
Win 0180 Garner J               13  16.2  125.0
Win 0071 Boyce K.D              10  12.0  120.0
Eng 0079 Hendrick M             10  11.8  117.5
Eng 0346 Hemmings E.E           13  15.0  115.4
Slk 0410 de Silva P.A           16  18.4  115.3
Aus 0672 Reiffel P.R            12  13.8  114.8
Aus 0730 Warne S.K              32  36.6  114.2
Aus 1112 Lee B                  22  24.9  113.0
Ind 1023 Harbhajan Singh        11  12.4  112.7

This is the all-rounder analysis. A simple generic wicket valuation at 25 runs and a combination of runs scored and wickets captured. The qualifications for this complete table are players who have captured 10 wickets or more and scored 200 runs and more. The wickets and runs are weighted and the index calculated (Runs scored + 25 x wickets captured). No great changes, though in the order of the table other than that Richards jumped over Kallis because of his cup successes.

Cty Player          <---Actual---->  <--Weighted--->
                    Runs Wkts Index  Runs Wkts Index

Slk Jayasuriya S.T  1165  27   1840  1241 30.2  1996
Pak Wasim Akram      426  55   1801   454 58.3  1911
Aus Waugh S.R        978  27   1653  1036 28.7  1753
Pak Imran Khan       666  34   1516   732 35.5  1619
Slk de Silva P.A    1064  16   1464  1149 18.4  1610
Slk Vaas WPUJC       219  49   1444   237 52.1  1538
Ind Kapil Dev N      669  28   1369   683 29.8  1426
Win Richards I.V.A  1013  10   1263  1131 10.8  1399
Saf Kallis J.H       923  16   1323   975 16.9  1396
Ind Ganguly S.C     1006  10   1256  1061 10.1  1313
Nzl Harris C.Z       431  32   1231   459 32.5  1270
Nzl Styris S.B       767  13   1092   805 13.6  1145
Saf Pollock S.M      279  31   1054   292 33.1  1119
Eng Botham I.T       297  30   1047   310 32.2  1116
Ken Tikolo S.O       724  14   1074   743 14.5  1104
Nzl Cairns C.L       565  18   1015   586 19.1  1062

To view/down-load the complete World Cup related tables, please click on links given below.

Batsmen performance table: please click/right-click here.
Bowler performance table: please click/right-click here.
All-rounder performance table: please click/right-click here.

Finally a list of my own selection of the top-10 batting and bowling performances. Let me repeat that this is my selection, partly based on my own watching/viewing, the analytical results and personal preferences. The reader may have a different list. Question mine by sending your selections. The order in this list is material and reflects my own preferences.

Top-10 Bowling performances in World Cups

Gilmour's 6 for 14 for Aus vs Eng in the 1975 semi final.
Bichel's 7 for 20 for Aus vs Eng in 2003.
Bond's 6 for 23 for Nzl vs Aus in 2003.
Obuya's 5 for 25 for Ken vs Slk in 2003.
McGrath's 5 for 14 for Aus vs Win in 1999.
Warne's 4 for 29 for Aus vs Saf in the 1999 semi final.
Garner's 5 for 38 for Win vs Eng in the 1979 final.
Nehra's 6 for 23 for Ind vs Eng in 2003.
M Pringle's 4 for 11 for Saf vs Win in 1992.
Davis's 7 for 51 for Win vs Aus in 1983.
S Pollock's 5 for 36 for Saf vs Aus in 1999 Semi final.

These performances are legend and nothing elaborate needs to be said. Both Gilmour and Bichel had to bat well also in their matches to help Australia win. But for their powerful cameos their own bowling efforts could have gone in vain. Obuya’s spell was responsible for Kenya’s qualification to the semi-final. But for Warne’s spell, South Africa would have walked away with a semi-final win. Garner is the only bowler to have captured 5 wickets in a winning final. Bond’s outstanding spell was in vain.

Top-10 Batting performances in World Cups

Kapil Dev's 175 for Ind vs Zim in 1983.
de Silva's 107 for Slk vs Aus in the 1996 final.
Gilchrist's 149 for Aus vs Slk in the 2007 final.
Lara's 111 for Win vs Saf in 1996 quarter final.
Richards's 138 for Win vs Eng in the 1979 final.
Lloyd's 102 for Win vs Aus in the 1975 final.
Gooch's 115 for Eng vs Ind in the 1987 semi final.
Inzamam's 60 for Pak vs Nzl in the 1992 semi final.
Tendulkar's 98 for Ind vs Pak in 2003.
Houghton's 142 for Zim vs Nzl in 1986.
Ponting's 140 for Aus vs Ind in 2003 Final (3 votes from readers).
Steve Waugh's 120 for Aus vs Saf in 1999 (3 votes from readers).
Symonds' 143 for Aus vs Pak in 2003 (3 votes from readers).

Kapil Dev’s 175 is the only innings which can even be talked of in the same breath as Richards’ 189*. Nothing more needs to be said. There are a number of World Cup final innings in this selection. Gilchrist’s 149 is probably the most devastating of all World Cup innings. Gooch swept India away with his 115 while Inzamam announced his extraordinary talent to the world with this match-winning blitz. Houghton’s innings was in vain but the memory stays with me since I watched that match on television. Tendulkar’s 98 was an innings for the Gods.

Finally a list of the ten greatest upsets in World Cup and a few derivations. This has been prepared using the Team strengths as the basis for comparison. These are given in order of the extent of upset factor. The most emphatic and path-breaking upsets are shown first.

Ireland defeating Pakistan by 3 wkts during 2007 (Mat# 2539).
Kenya defeating Sri Lanka by 53 runs during 2003 (Mat# 1965).
Bangladesh defeating India by 5 wkts during 2007 (Mat# 2538).
Bangladesh defeating Pakistan by 62 runs during 1999 (Mat# 1471).
Zimbabwe defeating Australia by 13 runs during 1983 (Mat# 199).
Bangladesh defeating South Africa by 67 runs during 2007 (Mat# 2564).
Zimbabwe defeating South Africa by 48 runs during 1999 (Mat# 1468).
Kenya defeating West Indies by 73 runs during 1996 (Mat# 1066).
Zimbabwe defeating England by 9 runs during 1992 (Mat# 748).
Zimbabwe defeating India by 3 runs during 1999 (Mat# 1450).
Canada defeating Bangladesh by 60 runs during 2003 (Mat# 1946).

Zimbabwe have effected four such upsets while India and Pakistan have been at the receiving ends in two matches each. Another important feature is that, barring the two most recent ones during 2007, the other 8 have been achieved defending totals successfully. It looks like the stronger teams made a mess of their chases.

Two other matches, the India loss to Sri Lanka during 1979 and Final win over Weset Indies during 1983, both involving India could have made the list but have been omitted since India was awful in 1979 and beginning to be a force in 1983.

Ireland defeated Pakistan on the same day Bangladesh defeated India. Zimbabwe have effected four such upsets while India and Pakistan have lost two such matches each. Another important feature is that, barring the two most recent ones during 2007, the other 8 have been achieved defending totals successfully. It looks like the weaker teams are more adept at defending totals than chasing. Kenya’s win over Sri Lanka enabled them to be the surprise semi-finalist during the 2003 World Cup.