In response to one of my recent articles there were quite a few comments on the ODI game and steps to be taken to improve and strengthen the same. This article is a summary encompassing the readers' suggestions and adding my own.

The article is in two parts. The first one deals with ways of strengthening the ODI matches through match-level changes. The second part concentrates on strengthening the game format.

Suggestions on ODI match-level changes

1. Two bowlers being allowed to bowl 12 overs each. This will tilt the scales a little bit in favour of the bowlers. Teams will be tempted to play four top bowlers since only six overs need to be bowled by the fifth bowler. It should be remembered that the 20% is not sacrosanct. Even now the bowlers might bowl above 20% in a few situations: rain affected matches and innings which do not go the full extent of 50 overs. It would be great to see Dale Steyn and Vernon Philander get the four extra overs since the batsmen have to plan for this eventuality.

This is needed because of recent rule changes like free-hits, marginal wides, one bouncer per over, Power Plays etc which are all in favour of the batsmen. There is a need to level the playing field a bit. Let me add that this suggestion has not been caused by the fact that batsmen can play a higher share of team balls. It is true only in single innings. However, over the entire career, there is no great difference in the % of balls bowed/faced by batsmen/bowlers. The following tables are interesting.

Batsman        TeamBalls BatBalls % faced

Marsh G.R         32370     7721   23.85
Greenidge C.G     34875     7908   22.68
Haynes            63324    13707   21.65
...
Tendulkar        120096    21073   17.55
Ponting           98998    17010   17.18

Bowler         TeamBalls BowBalls % bowled

Chatfield         30221     6065   20.07
Md. Rafique       32056     6414   20.01
Muralitharan      94327    18811   19.94
Abdur Razzak(Bng) 33379    67237   19.90
Wasim Akram       93398    18186   19.47

Thus it can be seen that while theoretically a batsman can face 50% of the team balls, in practice, this works to a much lower number. It is obvious but the main reason is that the batsman have but a single life. The bowler could go for 30 in 2 overs but could go on to complete his spell. Hence the two % share values are closer. If the 12-over change is implemented we will have top bowlers at near 24%, wonderfully at par with the batsmen.

2. Re-define leg side wide. Today a lovely off-break from Graeme Swann pitched on the middle stump has every chance of being called a wide. Similarly a beautiful off-cutter bowled on the leg stump would very be called a wide. The leg side wide definition should be changed. The law could be changed to, say, "if a ball is pitched outside leg stump and is not likely to hit the stumps should be called a wide". This would allow a leg-spinner to pitch on the roughs outside the leg stump and not be called a wide. The current definition seems to take into account where the ball ends after going past the bat and not where the ball pitches.

3. Remove No ball-free hit anomaly. The free hit itself is not liked by many. However it has been proved in these columns that this has resulted in a decrease in the number of no balls. Hence it has come here to stay. In that case why should a no ball called because the ball was bowled above waist-high or it was a beamer be not called a free hit. In real cricketing sense these deliveries are far more dangerous and likely to cause bodily harm than a no ball which was delivered with the boot couple of inches beyond the crease.

4. Allow two bouncers per over. This will make all the overs more challenging and give the fielding team a few more options. The batsmen have to improvise to handle the two short deliveries. Since there going to be 20 Power Play overs per innings and there is a limit of 2/3 fielders outside the ring, the batsmen should find methods to convert short-pitches balls into scoring opportunities. There is an alternate suggestion to limit this change to only the PP overs. It is suggested that this whole question should be examined.

5. Give higher weight for away results. The need to resolve the groups in a better manner than net run rate has opened up this option. Surely India's win over South Africa away should count more than their win in India. And vice versa. The additional weight could be as low as 10% or as high as 25.0%/33.3% (4/3 points for a win and 1 bonus point for an away win. This will become very relevant in the WCL, described later. The precedent is the rule in many Football leagues where away goals count double.

6. Split of innings into 2 parts: There is a lot of support for the ODI format with innings split into 2 parts. Whether the split is 25+25 or 30+20, whether we could use two new balls from either end as is currently being done or a new ball for each of the innings, how to split the Power Plays etc., we will leave to the organizers. The biggest benefit will be the reduced impact of Toss and possibly improved handling of rain-affected matches.

7. Tie resolution in leagues: The current method of tie-resolution using NRRs has a number of shortcomings, especially in D/L matches. Also the emphasis is on quicker scoring which is not necessarily the correct method for resolving ties. A better method would be to incorporate into the calculations an element of the win quantum. How comfortable or difficult were the wins. Milind Pandit has suggested a simple, but excellent, "Ball Difference" method which can be used for this purpose. The link for the suggested calculations is given below.

click here

8. D/L method: It is recommended that the target scores in both D/L and VJD method be publicised in each Rain situation. The D/L target can be continued to be used. However this will enable cricket followers to get an idea of the target scores by an alternate method. If we take the MCG and SCG matches there were some feelings of discomfort on the target scores. It would have been nice to have a VJD target for both.

Given below are some minor suggestions which are of the nice-to-have variety. These are all not major changes but are, one could call, the readers' wish-list and could be treated as such.

- Allow the captains to decide on their team composition after the toss. This could be as easy as allowing them to carry two separate team sheets to the toss.
- Make Batting Power play optional. If a batting team does not want it, why insist on that.
- Make the overs 15-34 Power Play overs and let the captains decide how they would like to optimise the 1-15 and 35-50 overs.
- Allow an additional fielder in the Power Play overs, but could be in the third close catching position.
- Strengthen and implement the Super-Sub option again.
- What is the significance of the back-foot no balls. What does it matter if a bowler delivers from wide of the crease. He may get an angle but is much more likely to be penalized for wides, if he misses even slightly.
- Have no bowler limit at all. While there may be a temptation to play more batsmen, it is very difficult to see more than 15 overs being delivered by one bowler within 200 minutes. He would become very ineffective later on.
- Resort to tie-resolving like olden days, based on wickets lost, to produce more results, especially in WCL.

Given below are three suggestions which have validity across all formats of Cricket, especially Tests.

1. Make DRS compulsory. Too much has been written on DRS, to no avail. I concede all points on the drawbacks of DRS. I accept the validity of some of BCCI objections. I appreciate Simon Taufel's sensible observations against DRS. However, I am with Michael Clarke whole-heartedly. Either all should play with DRS or no one should. And it is the Indian team which is sitting pretty. They play ALL matches without DRS. Australia play with DRS in one series and then have to do without DRS in the next one and then go back to DRS. Same with other countries. Absolutely ridiculous. ICC should say "DRS is mandatory w.e.f 1 April 2012.". DRS would evolve, get fine-tuned and in two years' time we may have a 99% effective system.

2. Switch Hit conundrum. Allow the Switch Hit since it is a high risk shot and not all can play the same effectively. In that case, however, remove all protection for the batsman. In other words, no leg side wides, wides only past the marker on either side and no lbw protection for pitching outside leg stump. Allow different types of no balls though.

3. Fielder hitting stumps. If a fielder's throw hits the stumps, declare a dead ball. Let the fielding side not get penalized for a great fielding effort.

The problems with the ODI structure is multi-fold, as outlined below.

1. Too many matches. During the past three years, 144, 142 and 149 matches have been played.
2. Too many inconsequential matches. Especially in the bi-lateral series.
3. Very unwieldy bi-lateral series. 5 itself is too many and 7 is totally way-out. 4. There is wide disparity in the number of matches played even between top teams.
5. The so called cash-cow series keep getting repeated.
6. In the non-World Cup years, there is no great interest. Champions' Trophy is a poor cousin to World Cup and there are very few Triangular/Quadrangular tournaments.

Hence the following schedule is suggested. This is a major re-vamp because of the creation of a completely new and exciting concept called World Cricket league, explained in great detail later. But this will revolutionize the game completely.

First, it is recommended that all bi-lateral series be standardized to 3 ODIs and 3 T20s. This would mean a lapsed time of only 2 weeks (1/4/7/10/12/14) and the tour itself will take no more than 3 weeks. Each of these series is almost certain to have a result.

There are no major suggestions on the World Cup. The last World Cup was very well structured and conducted. That could be the blue-print. Alternately, 10 teams and all-play-all format (1992 format) can be used. Even in this case, all efforts should be made to fill, say, the last 3 places through selection tournaments so that the associate teams have a good chance.

It should be seen that the bi-lateral series cannot be used for WCL because of the very strong home/away advantage which teams have. Also we will continue to be plagued by the meaningless matches syndrome.

It should be seen that in the non-WCL years, the bi-lateral series, in the suggested leaner and better format, will continue to be played. Even in the WCL years, the eliminated teams and associate nations can stage their own bi-lateral series.

Given below is a suggested schedule for the next 10 years and fits the existing commitments.

2012: T20 World Cup.               Bi-lateral ODI series. Test series.
2013: Champions' Trophy.           Bi-lateral ODI series. Test series.
2014: World Cricket League.                               Test series.
2015: ODI World Cup.               Bi-lateral ODI series. Test series.
2016: World Cricket League.                               Test series.
2017: Test Championship.           Bi-lateral ODI series.
2018: World Cricket League.                               Test series.
2019: ODI World Cup.               Bi-lateral ODI series. Test series.
2020: World Cricket League.                               Test series.
2021: Test Championship.           Bi-lateral ODI series.

The inaugural WCL has been suggested for 2014 so that there is enough time to plan everything. The next T20 WC could be fitted in suitably, probably during 2014, 2017 and 2020. It is our belief that the Champions' Trophy will die a natural death once the WCL gets going.

Now for complete details on the WCL.

WORLD CRICKET LEAGUE (WCL)

The WCL is a biennial year-long league-cum-knockout ODI tournament. This has been based on the most successful league-cum-knockout tournament in the world, the European Champions' League and NBA. The basic idea was provided by a regular reader, Raghav Behani and Vikram and Vishal added useful inputs. I have fine-tuned the ideas and structured the whole thing into a 10-year frame.

WCL is conducted in four stages. Scheduling and logistics would be a major problem to be solved but I am confident that ICC can do it, with cooperation from the constituent Boards can do it successfully.

1. WCL Preliminary League

This is a geographical league, to the extent possible. 12 teams participate in the WCL-PL. In the first year let us say there are the 10 Test-playing nations and two other Associate countries, say Ireland and Afghanistan. These 12 teams are split into four groups of three teams each. Two teams from each group will qualify for the next round. The four third placed teams will join other teams in a Qualifying league for the next competition. The suggested group configurations are given below. This will vary year on year and some juggling would have to be done.

Group 1: India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh.
Group 2: South Africa, West Indies, Zimbabwe.
Group 3: Pakistan, England, Afghanistan.
Group 4: Australia, New Zealand, Ireland.

Each team will play the other teams three times, once at home, once away and once in the third country (neutral). So each team plays 6 matches, each country conducts 6 matches and there would be 9 matches in each group, making 36 matches in all.

This are no problems in groups 1 and 2, the teams are in close proximity to each other. Group 3 has some potential problems. Pakistan and Afghanistan might not be ready to host matches. England cannot hold matches because of winter. The best solution is to hold these matches in UAE. There are three centres and each can hold 3 matches. In group 4, Ireland can travel down under and play all their matches in the two countries.

An overall target can be set that these group matches should finish by April.

2. WCL Qualification League

This is a secondary league. The teams comprise of the 4 eliminated teams from the WCL-PL and four other Associate teams, selected through earlier events. This will be similar to the WCL-ML in that there will be two groups and the top two in each group will qualify for the following years' main competition. The format will be similar to WCL-ML and there would be a total of 24 matches played. There will be a lot of interest in this league since the rewards are great.

3. WCL Main League

This is the main league and non-geographical. There are two groups with 4 teams each. The method of allocation would be two first-placed and two second-placed teams in each group and the teams would be separated from their WCL-PL groupings.

Each team will play the other three teams, home and away. So each team plays 6 matches and there would be 12 matches in each group, making 24 matches in all. An alternative would be to locate the groups in one location, making travel easier.

Two teams from each group will qualify for the next round.

An overall target can be set that these Main league matches should finish by July.

4. WCL Semi-Final League/Play-off

This can be either a play-off format or league format. The advantage with a league format is that each team plays all the other teams and there would be clearly identified first, second, third and fourth places.

Each team will play the other three teams, once, possibly in a neutral location. So each team plays 3 matches and there would be 6 matches in all. All the matches could be played in one or two locations.

Alternately the two semi-finals could be played as best-of-three knock-out matches with the two losing teams playing a 3-team knock-out to determine third and fourth places.

An overall target can be set that these semi final matches should finish by September.

5. WCL Final

The two teams that qualify are placed based on their semi-final league/playoff performances.

These two teams play a 5-match play-off series to determine the WCL winner. There are two options. In either case. the higher placed team will host three matches and the lower placed team will host two matches.

The teams play 2 matches in the lower placed team's country and then move on to the higher placed team's country, to play 3 more matches.

Alternately, the teams play 2 matches in the higher placed team's country and then move on to the lower placed team's country, to play 2 more matches. If the tie is still unresolved, the teams play the the decider in the higher-placed team location. This will depend on the proximity of the teams also.

An overall target can be set that these Final matches should take place during November.

This means there will be a total of 95 matches including the 24 in the Elimination league. This will be perfectly manageable. There will almost be no dead matches. Every match will have relevance. The two teams in the Final would have played 20 matches each, every one of these 20 meaningful ones. Other teams lesser, but no less relevant. Again the load can be managed very well.

A summary of the WCL scheduling

I have worked out that the WCL-PL will take between 45-50 days, the WCL-ML will take between 45-50 days, the WCL-SFL will take between 15-20 days and the WCL-Finals will take between 15-20 days. This and some slack for travel etc, will mean a total lapsed time of 6 months for the WCL. This leaves us 6 months to concentrate on Test cricket. There would be enough time for teams to play 4 or 5 standardized 3-Test series. This can be managed quite comfortably since there would be no ODI series to follow or precede.

Prize Money: A suggested distribution. I know the public have no say in this. However this should just round off the blue-print document.

Winner:          30%.
Runner-up:       15%.
3rd placed team: 10%.
4th placed team: 7.5%.
4 Main league qualifiers: 5% each (20%).
4 eliminated teams from preliminary leagues: 2.5% each (10%).

This will still leave enough money, 7.5%, to be allotted for associate teams.

This follows the review of the 2011 Tests. This will mostly be on Teams and important measures during the year, the 5-years before 2011 and the 40 years before. I will not do any individual innings listings since people immediately come out with objections and we lose the thread. All of us get side-tracked.

First a single paragraph each on the batting, bowling and team performances of 2011.

The historic innings of the year was Virender Sehwag's 219. After all, a world record score was overtaken. If Sehwag had played on till the end of innings, maybe 250 would have been crossed. The most powerful batting display was by Shane Watson during his 185 (in 96 balls) against Bangladesh. 150 runs in boundaries tells the story. If Bangladesh had scored another 30 runs he would have been the batsman to overtake Sachin Tendulkar. The most significant innings of the year was Gautam Gambhir's 97. Without that there was no win for India. MS Dhoni played an equally important innings but Gambhir's was more significant. 31 for 2 was a potentially losing situation while 114 for 3 was at least on an even keel. The poignant innings of the year were the two centuries by two great batsmen in their last World Cup matches. That they both lost the battle to India's fighting skills adds to the poignancy. I refer to Ricky Ponting and Mahela Jayawardene.

This was not a great year for bowling performances. Probably the most significant was Wahab Riaz's five wicket haul in the WC semi-final. Four of these were those of top order batsmen. He did his task admirably but his batsmen let him down. An equally good performance was that of Woakes who captured 6 wickets against Australia. The only Indian bowler to capture 5 wickets was Yuvraj Singh, remembering to say our prayers for his speedy recovery and to wear the blue jersey again, against Ireland: an important effort in a tight match. However the bowler of the year was Shahid Afridi who had four 5-wicket hauls, followed by Lasith Malinga, with three.

In my anxiety to do as little of individual performances as possible, I missed, inarguably, the individual performance of the year. It required Boll, an Australian, to point out this lapse. My apologies to Yuvraj and all his supporters. I had referred to him only in passing re the 5-wkt haul against Ireland. Yuvraj's 350+ runs and 15 wickets during the World Cup was the most outstabding individual performance of the year and couple of years before and possibly after. Thanks, Boll.

The above are partly subjective and the readers are welcome to come out with their significant performances.

India were the deserving WC winners. They were the most resilient and balanced of all teams. In all three knock-out matches there were many moments when they looked like slipping but the hour cometh and the men cometh. Almost all the players contributed. That week in spring, India was the team and held their nerve to win a deserved WC. The rest of the year was not so great but the WC win was very well-earned. India had done this on-the-brink performances three times during 2011, chronicled elsewhere. As readers are aware of, I am the last person to blindly support India, but deserved credit must be given whole-heartedly where it is due, for the very significant performances during those six weeks in 2011.

As single matches go, the Sri Lankan demolition of England by 10 wickets in the WC quarter-final and Australia's blitz, led by Watson, at 8-plus runs per over against Bangladesh were the most devastating of the year. As far as the match of the year is concerned there were a few 300s chased comfortably, 200s chased with difficulty, sub-200 totals defended and so on. However the match of the year has to be Ireland's brave and successful chase of England's 300-plus total. Thinking of this match, looks like the collective brains of the IPL franchisees were left behind outside the hotel. How else can anyone explain no one picking up Kevin O'Brien for 50000 dollars?

1. A look at performance of teams during 2011 (with and without weight for WC)

Team	ODIs	Won	NR	Lost	MaxPts	Team Pts	Performance %	WCPts	Perf % (incl WC)
Pakistan	32	24	1	7	64	52.0	81.3%	2	84.4%
India	34	21	3	10	68	43.2	63.5%	10	78.2%
Australia	25	18	1	6	50	37.4	74.8%	1	76.8%
South Africa	15	9	0	6	30	17.6	58.7%	1	62.0%
New Zealand	17	9	1	7	34	19.0	55.9%	2	61.8%
Sri Lanka	28	14	2	12	56	28.8	51.4%	5	60.4%
England	30	11	3	16	60	24.2	40.3%	1	42.0%
West Indies	28	10	1	17	56	21.0	37.5%	1	39.3%
Zimbabwe	17	6	0	11	34	11.2	32.9%	0	32.9%
Ireland	12	4	0	8	24	7.6	31.7%	0	31.7%
Scotland	4	3	0	1	20	5.8	29.0%	0	29.0%
Bangladesh	20	6	0	14	40	11.6	29.0%	0	29.0%
Afghanistan	2	2	0	0	20	4.4	22.0%	0	22.0%
Netherlands	10	2	0	8	20	3.6	18.0%	0	18.0%
Canada	10	1	0	9	20	2.0	10.0%	0	10.0%
Kenya	8	0	0	8	20	0.0	0.0%	0	0.0%

This is the traditional 2-1-0 method of evaluating team performance. I have done this to provide a complete analysis. There is no weight for WC matches in the first analysis segment. I have used the 2-1-0 values for the neutral matches and weighed the home matches down by 10% and the away matches upwards by 10%. The relative strengths of the teams is not taken into account since the complexity is not worth it. If I were to do a complete Team Ratings work then the team strengths will come into the equation.

Pakistan were the best team by a mile, with a performance measure of 81.3%. They had a great year despite playing ALL their matches away from home. They compiled an excellent record of 75% wins. Australia were nearly as good, winning 18 of their 25 matches. Their performance measure was a very creditable 74.8%. India were just about average, clocking in at 63.5%. A quixotic scheduling meant that India played their last 20 matches against West Indies and England compiling a not-so-great 12-2-6 record. South Africa was below average with 58.7%. New Zealand and Sri Lanka got a 50-plus value. England and West Indies were below-par, clocking at below 50%.

The additional evaluation is the more relevant table in that the World Cup results are incorporated. After all the World Cup is a quadrennial event and is the most important event in cricketing calendar. World Cup wins have to be recognized. I have used a simple methodology. I have added 10/5/2/1 points respectively to the winner/runner-up/losing semi-finalists/losing quarter-finalists. This seems very fair and recognizes the importance of World Cup performances. May be subjective, but no one should have any complaints. Anyhow if a reader wants, he can put in his own weight for the World Cup and re-do the tables. India's win, and the 10 points they secured, pushed them into the second place, ahead of Australia. Pakistan's overall performance was so good that they managed to retain their top place. On balance, I would place Pakistan and India as the teams of the year. Pakistan had a great year and India won the World Cup. How I wish these two teams revive their wonderful rivalry: if required, on the desert grounds, hopefully with an aura of brotherhood than acrimony (Sriram's words).

Now for a series of tables analysing key figures for the teams. This would give us a good insight into why certain teams performed very well. Remember that Pakistan, India and Australia are the top three teams. Sri Lanka, despite their WC Final, had a very indifferent year. First a composite table looking at RpO (Runs per Over), RpW (Runs per Wicket) and BpW (Balls per Wicket) values.

2. Comparisons of own and other teams' RpO, RpW and BpW

Team	RpO			RpW			BpW
	For	Vs	Diff	For	Vs	Diff	For	Vs	Diff
Australia	5.47	4.91	0.56	37.7	28.1	9.6	34.3	41.4	7.0
New Zealand	5.46	4.99	0.47	38.1	27.1	11.0	32.6	41.8	9.3
Pakistan	4.87	4.50	0.37	31.6	24.2	7.3	32.3	38.9	6.6
India	5.51	5.17	0.34	35.9	29.6	6.3	34.3	39.0	4.7
Sri Lanka	5.04	4.83	0.21	31.4	27.3	4.2	33.8	37.4	3.6
Ireland	5.32	5.11	0.21	28.0	31.3	-3.3	36.7	31.5	-5.2
England	5.41	5.52	-0.11	30.3	36.0	-5.7	39.1	33.6	-5.5
West Indies	4.84	4.98	-0.14	28.7	30.9	-2.2	37.2	35.5	-1.7
Zimbabwe	4.78	5.02	-0.24	28.5	38.7	-10.2	46.2	35.8	-10.4
Bangladesh	4.39	5.06	-0.66	24.3	31.9	-7.6	37.8	33.1	-4.7
Netherlands	4.46	5.29	-0.83	22.3	42.2	-19.9	47.9	30.0	-17.9
Canada	4.27	5.76	-1.50	19.4	33.2	-13.8	34.5	27.3	-7.2
Below 10 ODIs
Afghanistan	6.08	5.60	0.48	20.2	19.1	1.1	20.5	19.9	-0.6
Scotland	4.94	5.15	-0.21	31.1	30.1	1.0	35.1	37.9	2.7
Kenya	3.93	5.66	-1.73	18.4	44.9	-26.5	47.6	28.1	-19.5

First the RpO values. I have considered this as more important than the RpW and BpW figures since this is what ultimately leads to an ODI win. The table is ordered on the RpO differential. Australia leads the table with a healthy RpO differential of 0.56. This has led to their excellent 75% performance. New Zealand were next with 0.47. Their overall numbers are quite good and it is surprising that they do not have better results. Pakistan has a slightly lower RpO differential of 0.37. However it must be noted that this figure is on somewhat lower RpO values, they having played many matches with lower average scores. Their differential is 7.6% as against New Zealand's 8.6%. India has a RpO differential of 0.34. Sri Lanka and Ireland have the same RpO differential of 0.21, indicating the great year Ireland had. As expected England and West Indies have negative RpO differentials.

The other comparison I have made is between own RpW and RpW. The RpW differentials show similar weights as the RpO differentials. New Zealand leads with a differential of 11.6 and Australia and Pakistan follow with 9.6 and 7.3 respectively. This is repeated in the BpW figures. New Zealand again leads with 9.3 and Australia and Pakistan follow with 7.0 and 6.6.

3. Analysis of boundaries hit

Team	ODIs	Team Runs	4s hit	4s/match	6s hit	6s/match	4s6s %
Ireland	12	2741	253	21.1	49	4.1	47.60%
Zimbabwe	17	3792	350	20.6	53	3.1	45.30%
West Indies	28	6017	441	15.8	147	5.2	44.00%
New Zealand	17	3691	298	17.5	72	4.2	44.00%
Canada	10	1805	155	15.5	28	2.8	43.70%
Australia	25	5774	484	19.4	91	3.6	43.00%
India	34	8462	737	21.7	113	3.3	42.90%
Netherlands	10	1987	157	15.7	32	3.2	41.30%
Pakistan	32	6533	552	17.2	75	2.3	40.70%
Sri Lanka	28	6096	538	19.2	52	1.9	40.40%
England	30	6977	567	18.9	69	2.3	38.40%
Bangladesh	20	3760	306	15.3	29	1.4	37.20%
South Africa	15	3634	280	18.7	37	2.5	36.90%
Below 10 ODIs
Afghanistan	2	363	29	14.5	13	6.5	53.40%
Scotland	4	841	60	15	14	3.5	38.50%
Kenya	8	1324	103	12.9	15	1.9	37.90%

This is an analysis of the boundaries hit by teams during 2011. At the end I have compared all these key measures for the year 2011, the previous decade and the 40-year period. Those values can be compare to these. This table is ordered by boundaries as % of team runs.

We are again in for a surprise. Ireland leads the table having hit 47.6% of their team runs in boundaries. The second is another surprise. Zimbabwe clocks with 45.3%. The surprises continue with West Indies and New Zealand at 44.0% and Canada with 43.7%. Then come the big guns. Australia has cored 43.7% and India and Pakistan have both got above 40%. What is South Africa doing at the lower reaches of the table at 36.9%.

There are two other minor measures. The fours per match and sixes per match. India leads the fours measure with 21.7 and Ireland closely follows with 21.1 and Zimbabwe with 20.6. These are the only teams clocking above 20. West Indies lead the sixes column with 5.7 per match. They, led by Gayle, Pollard and Russell crossed the ropes a huge 147 times. New Zealand and Ireland follow next with 4.2 and 4.1. Sri Lanka's lack of heavy hitters is shown by the relatively low 1.9 per match.

4. Analysis of Extras conceded and Maidens bowled

Team	ODIs	VsRuns	Extras	Extras/300balls	Overs	Maidens	Maidens %
India	34	7953	225	8.5	1537.4	67	4.36%
Canada	10	2522	73	8.7	437.3	16	3.66%
Netherlands	10	2450	73	8.9	463.2	20	4.32%
Bangladesh	20	4237	130	9.2	838.0	46	5.49%
Ireland	12	2846	90	9.5	557.1	19	3.41%
Zimbabwe	17	3828	134	10.5	762.0	33	4.33%
New Zealand	17	3601	127	10.6	721.5	32	4.43%
South Africa	15	2825	104	11.0	619.0	31	5.01%
West Indies	28	5713	212	11.1	1148.2	44	3.83%
England	30	7522	279	11.1	1361.4	54	3.97%
Sri Lanka	28	5532	217	11.8	1145.1	58	5.06%
Australia	25	5599	256	13.7	1139.1	36	3.16%
Pakistan	32	6031	313	15.6	1340.1	88	6.57%
Below 10 ODIs
Afghanistan	2	363	11	9.1	64.5	2	3.08%
Scotland	4	1024	23	6.7	199.0	8	4.02%
Kenya	8	1751	118	20.2	309.1	16	5.18%

This is an analysis of the teams' performances on field. Two measures have been analyzed. The first is a look at the extras conceded by the team. To be consistent with the overall summary analysis, I have determined the number of Extras conceded by the team per 300 balls, the expected innings size. India has shown that they are the most disciplined bowling attack and wicket-keeping competency with a low Extras per 300 balls of 8.5. Then come a series of lower-tiered teams with Extras per 300 balls values of 10 or less. The lower half of the teams has the more fancied teams. The last two places are occupied by Australia and Pakistan, with 13.7 and 15.6 extras per 300 balls. Pakistan's lack of discipline might very well be intentional. Readers would remember the instructions Imran gave to Wasim Akram in 1992. Go for the wickets: don't bother about the extras.

On the right hand side of the table I have the maidens bowled and what % these comprise out of the overs bowled by the team. Pakistan is the leader with 6.57% of their overs as maidens: worked out an average of more than 3 maidens per match. Bangladesh, with their accurate spinners, come in next with 5.5%. Sri Lanka, with a similar bowling combination, is next with around 5.1%. South Africa has a maidens % above 5. Amongst the top teams, Australia has the lowest maidens % of 3.16%. Maybe their attacking field placements or the pace-dominant attacks.

5. An analysis of wins achieved by Teams during 2011

Team	Wins in 2011	VeryClose	Close wins	Easy wins	Huge wins		Batting first	Chasing
Pakistan	24	2	5	14	1		11	13
India	21	3	2	14	2		8	13
Australia	18	1	2	14	0		8	10
Sri Lanka	14	0	1	7	4		8	6
England	11	1	5	3	1		6	5
West Indies	10	1	1	4	2		5	5
South Africa	9	0	1	4	4		7	2
New Zealand	9	0	1	3	1		4	5
Zimbabwe	6	2	1	1	2		3	3
Bangladesh	6	2	0	4	0		2	4
Ireland	4	0	1	2	1		2	2
Netherlands	2	1	1	0	0		0	2
Canada	1	0	0	1	0		0	1
Below 10 ODIs
Kenya	0	0	0	0	0		0	0
Scotland	2	0	1	2	0		1	2
Afghanistan	2	1	1	0	0		1	1

This table analyses the wins achieved by the teams. The table is ordered by the number of wins. First the split between wins batting first and chasing. Both Pakistan and India have chased 13 times successfully, although this is higher proportion of India's 21 wins, as against Pakistan's 24. South Africa, probably with their excellent bowling attack, have successfully defended nearly 80% of the times. Australia have been equally successful whether they were defending or chasing.

The last section is an analysis of the wins by the type of wins. There are four classifications: Very Close, Close, Easy and Thumping. India has had 3 very close wins. The one-run win over South Africa, two-wicket win over South Africa and one-wicket win over West Indies. Sri Lanka and South Africa have won four of their matches by a mile.

6. A few important measures compared

Measure	2011	2006-10	All-ODIs
Matches	146	769	3234
Runs per over	4.75	4.65	4.37
Runs per wicket	28.2	27.9	27.4
Balls per wicket	35.6	36.0	37.6
4s per match	36.4	37.3	35.4
6s per match	6.09	5.86	4.95
Boundary runs as %	43.0	45.6	43.0
% Inns >= 300	5.4	10.2	6.7
% Inns <= 100	2.8	3.4	3.8
Opening Ptshp Avge	35.0	36.9	35.0
% OP >= 100	8.7	7.0	7.2
% OP <= 10	31.1	31.6	28.8
Extras/300 balls	14.9	16.5	16.9

Now for a look at various measures for 2011, the preceding five years and the 41 year period.

The Runs per Over values for 2011 are almost the same as the previous five years and slightly above the historic levels. With the way the laws are formed against the bowlers it is a miracle that the average RpO has reached 5.0.

The three Runs per Wicket numbers are almost comparable. The differences are very minimal.

The Balls per Wicket are the same as for the previous five years and are slightly lower than the historic figure.

The 4s per match and 6s per match both showed a marginal decrease/increase from the previous half-decade. Similarly the Boundary % of runs showed a slight decline. It looks as if the trend set during the later half of the 2000s decade will be maintained.

There is a slight increase in 300-plus innings, just above 11%, to previous half-decade and significant increase to the overall figure. I get the feeling we have now settled into a once in 9/10 innings situation. Also 6 of these 300-plus innings were chased down and one equalled (India-England). Surprisingly there is a significant increase in the sub-100 innings. And let me also say that not all these have been the so called minnows. Experienced teams are caught in situations, out of the blue and get dismissed for below 100.

The Opening partnerships in Tests showed a 20% drop from the previous decade and overall figures. Surprisingly the opening partnerships in ODIs seems to have maintained an upward trend: 36.9 against 34.3 for 2006-2010. I guess the runs keep coming because of the attacking fields. The sub-10 opening partnerships are almost at static levels. There has also been a steady increase in the 100-plus opening partnerships. A strong reason could be the Powerplay rule changes.

There was a continuing drop in the Extras per 300 balls from 16.9 to 14.9. As I have already mentioned this must be due to the severe handling of No balls. The No-balls incidence has gone down from 1.9 to 0.9. The other three forms of extras are very slightly down.

Over the next month or so I intend to compile all the reader ideas submitted and come out with a blueprint for the ODI game. Let me see if I can persuade ESPNcricinfo to forward the same to ICC. Surely the ODI game cannot survive in this bloated format.

Anand has pointed to a gem. India were at the receiving end of four 5-wkt hauls during the World Cup 2011. I have checked this out, but this could very well be a record in a WC. The bowlers were Wahab Riaz, Rampaul, Steyn and Bresnan. He has also suggested Steyn's 5-wkt haul as a memorable bowling performance.

This review of the year should have come out a few weeks earlier. However I was caught up in completing the series of articles on Bowling and Pitch quality and hence this slight delay. Anyhow the year is still fresh in our memory and here we go. I also do not want to hear the words Bowling/Pitch quality for a month or so.

1. A look at performance of teams during 2011

Team	Tests	Home	Neutral	Away	Home	Neutral	Away	Home	Neutral	Away	Performance
		Wins	Wins	Wins	Draws	Draws	Draws	Losses	Losses	Losses	%
England	8	5	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	81.2
Pakistan	10	0	1	5	0	2	1	0	0	1	80.5
Australia	9	2	0	2	0	0	2	2	0	1	56.7
New Zealand	5	0	0	2	1	0	0	1	0	1	53.0
South Africa	5	2	0	0	1	0	0	2	0	0	45.0
India	12	2	0	1	1	0	3	0	0	5	41.7
West Indies	10	1	0	1	2	0	2	2	0	2	40.0
Sri Lanka	11	0	0	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	37.3
Zimbabwe	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	18.0
Bangladesh	5	0	0	0	1	0	0	3	0	1	9.0

This is the traditional 2-1-0 method of evaluating team performance. I have analyzed the matches from home-neutral-away points of view. I have used the 2-1-0 values for the neutral matches and weighed the home matches down by 10% and the away matches upwards by 10%. For another website ratings work I do an additional measure of the team rating points (my famous 100 point split between the two teams). However for this I am going limit myself to the traditional 2-1-0 valuation only.

If one forgets the January disaster for England in the desert, they fully deserve the top position. Their overall record of 6-2-0 is outstanding and the best by any team. Pakistan has only a slightly inferior record of 6-3-1 indicating a welcome resurgence, continuing on to 2012. Just for information, the UAE matches are treated as neutral. Australia left the Ashes trauma of 2010 behind and compiled a 4-2-3 record. New Zealand and South Africa played the minimum of five Tests and compiled identical 2-1-2 records. Then comes India, somewhat fortuitously placed at no.6. They had a 3-4-5 record. They are indeed still lower down if one takes the defeat margins. And let us not forget that the next 3 Tests in 2012 have been thumping losses.

2. An alternate look at performance of teams during 2011

Team	Own RpW	Oth RpW	Difference	Own WpT	Oth WpT	Difference
England	59.2	28.5	30.7	18.5	10.9	7.6
Pakistan	41.6	26.4	15.2	19.6	12.4	7.2
South Africa	30	26.5	3.5	18.2	16.4	1.8
Australia	29.4	28.3	1.1	16.4	17.3	-0.9
Zimbabwe	33.8	34.6	-0.8	17	18.3	-1.3
India	30.9	35.6	-4.7	17.0	17.0	0.0
West Indies	27.7	33	-5.3	15.8	18.4	-2.6
New Zealand	25.8	32.2	-6.4	15.2	19.6	-4.4
Sri Lanka	29.7	40.8	-11	12.6	17.3	-4.6
Bangladesh	27.1	48.6	-21.5	12	18.4	-6.4

I can hear that strident caller saying "Cut the crap. This is what my ten-year old son/nephew/sister/cousin/.. does in 15 minutes flat on a Sunday afternoon. Where is this "alternate look"? Ah! that is coming now. Why were the teams successful? Good bowling and batting and fielding is fine. But what are the numbers? In this table I look at two sets of numbers to throw light on the success of certain teams and failures of the others.

First the RpW (Runs per wicket) values. I have compiled the "own RpW" and "other RpW" values and got the difference. This difference will indicate the success or lack of of the teams. England's own figure is 59.2 (amazing number - indicating an average innings of nearly 600) and 28.5. The "other RpW" is less than half of the "own RpW". The difference is a mind-boggling 30.7. Pakistan has a very respectable 41.6 and a tight 26.7, giving them a difference of 15.2. No wonder these two teams are so far up on the top. Then after a lot of daylight comes South Africa with a difference of 3.5. Australia is the only other team with a positive difference, viz., 1.1. Those who are surprised to see Zimbabwe placed above India, please be reminded that, leaving the Napier disaster aside, they have made a determined return to Test cricket. Their scores since their return are 370, 291, 412, 141, 313 and 331. Very creditable indeed. Compare this with India's sequence in England, viz., 286, 261, 288, 158, 224, 244, 300 and 283. No wonder Zimbabwe, have a difference of 0.8 are placed above India, with a difference of -4.7. One could also say India were lucky enough to play six Tests against West Indies.

The other comparison I have made is between "own WpM (wickets per match)" and "other WpM". After all a team has to take 20 wickets to win. Once again England and Pakistan are way up with a differential of 7.6 (18.5 vs 10.9) and 7.2 (19.6 vs 12.4) wickets respectively. South Africa has 1.8. India has a flat 0.0. Surprisingly Australia have a negative value of 0.9. This is no doubt due to their heavy defeat against England, narrow win over Sri Lanka, the 47 and the loss of 20 wickets in Hobart and Melbourne. Sri Lanka have done poorly in both measures. However let us not forget that they won a Test and two ODIs in South Africa.

3. The top team performances

2003 2011 Eng 87.45 vs Ind 12.55 England won by an innings and 242 runs
2022 2011 Pak 85.66 vs Bng 14.34 Pakistan won by an innings and 184 runs
1989 2011 Eng 82.55 vs Aus 17.45 England won by an innings and 83 runs
2023 2011 Saf 82.49 vs Slk 17.51 South Africa won by an innings and 81 runs
2001 2011 Eng 82.18 vs Ind 17.82 England won by 319 runs
2017 2011 Ind 80.46 vs Win 19.54 India won by an innings and 15 runs
1994 2011 Eng 80.43 vs Slk 19.57 England won by an innings and 14 runs
2004 2011 Eng 80.25 vs Ind 19.75 England won by an innings and 8 runs

These are the eight imposing wins during 2011. The criteria for selection is match rating points of 80 and above for the winning team. This is secured by any innings win or huge run-margin wins. Only one such win qualifies. This methodology has been explained in my September 2010 article. India has been at the receiving end quite often during 2011. The heaviest win was recorded by England over India (innings and 242 runs). Two other wins by England also fall in this category. Thus India has lost three matches heavily. India's home win over West Indies was achieved comfortably. In terms of winners, this was, without any question, England's year. 5 of these 8 wins have been achieved by them.

It may be of interest to note that India has started 2012 disastrously. All three of their losses have been worse than 80-20. New Zealand's thumping of Zimbabwe comes out with a 89.2-10.8 rating.

4. The year of the debutant bowler

2016 2011 Philander V.D        Saf Aus  7.0  3  15 5 151.2 Debut
2018 2011 Cummins P.J          Aus Saf 29.0  5  79 6 140.3 Debut
2020 2011 Pattinson J.L        Aus Nzl 11.0  5  27 5 131.4 Debut
2015 2011 Ashwin R             Ind Win 21.3  5  47 6 129.4 Debut
2005 2011 Lyon N.M             Aus Slk 15.0  3  34 5 117.7 Debut
2026 2011 de Lange M           Saf Slk 23.2  3  81 7 116.3 Debut
2010 2011 Elias Sunny          Bng Win 23.0  0  94 6 112.4 Debut
2013 2011 Bracewell D.A.J      Nzl Zim 25.0  2  85 5  99.2 Debut

The selectors only had to select a bowler and he would deliver a five-wicket performance. I have not checked this out but can confidently say that at no time in history would eight bowlers, on debut, have captured five wickets or more within a calendar year. And all these happened during the last four months. The stand-out performance was Philander's match-winning effort, discussed later.

5. The debut centurions

1999 2011 Debut Edwards K.A          Win Ind 110  139.6 Debut
2007 2011 Debut Marsh S.E            Aus Slk 141   94.2 Debut

Two centuries were scored on debut during 2011, Edwards did this during their home series against India. He did reasonably well when West Indies came over to India. Marsh scored a wonderful century against Sri Lanka and then dropped like a brick against India.

6. The top batting performances

2003 2011 Cook A.N             Eng Ind 294  193.0
2004 2011 Dravid R             Ind Eng 146* 186.9
2016 2011 Amla H.M             Saf Aus 112  185.0
1997 2011 Dravid R             Ind Win 112  183.0
2016 2011 Clarke M.J           Aus Saf 151  177.3
...
2021 2011 Warner D.A           Aus Nzl 123* 162.9

These are the top 5 rated batting performances. Dravid essayed two of these, both away. The Oval masterpiece of 146 was the innings people would talk of for years to come. To see him losing his stumps almost every innings over the past month has been painful, to say the least. However for me the two stand-out performances have been by two Australians, both in losing causes. Clarks's 151 was a masterpiece and deserved a win. However their own meltdown prevented that. Warner showed everyone that he is not just an attacking batsman. His unbeaten century would have become Lara/Inzamam/Greenidge-esque if only they had scored seven more runs. This innings was almost similar to Tendulkar's epic of 136 except that Warner remained unconquered.

In deference to the wishes of my Sri Lankan readers, I must make a mention of Sangakkara's three top quality innings: 211 against Pakistan, 119 against England and 108 against South Africa. All against top class bowling attacks and away. The first two were match-saving efforts and the third won a rare away match.

7. The top bowling performances

1988 2011 Harbhajan Singh      Ind Saf 38.0  1 120 7 180.4
1988 2011 Steyn D.W            Saf Ind 31.0 11  75 5 164.0
2021 2011 Bracewell D.A.J      Nzl Aus 16.4  4  40 6 154.0
2016 2011 Philander V.D        Saf Aus  7.0  3  15 5 151.2
2004 2011 Swann G.P            Eng Ind 38.0  6 106 6 148.1

These were the top rated bowling performances. For me the stand-out performance was that of Philander on his debut. The match was dead and gone with Australia taking a near-200 run lead. Philander, on his debut, bowled the perfect spell, bowling 42 deliveries on the spot. He could probably have taken all 10 wickets, the perfect way he bowled. His spell paved the way for a tough but reasonable task which was achieved quite comfortably. However without Philander, there would have been no Amla/Smith. Only slightly below is Bracewell's match-winning spell at Hobart. He gave the Australians a taste of the medicine they themselves were going to administer the Indian batsmen a few weeks later.

8. A few important measures compared

Measure	2011	2000-10	All-Tests
Runs per wicket	32.5	34.3	31.9
Runs per over	3.15	3.22	2.82
Wickets per match	32.6	30.9	30.7
Result %	69.2	75.3	65.2
Home wins %	33.3	45	38.6
Away wins %	35.9	30.4	26.6
Overs per match	336	329	348
Balls per wicket	61.8	63.9	67.9
% Inns >= 500	5.4	10.2	6.7
% Inns <= 100	2.8	3.4	3.8
Opening Ptshp Avge	30.9	39.6	36.9
% OP >= 100	6.1	9.2	9.2
% OP <= 10	36.1	28.2	28.7
2-5 Ptshp Avge	157.8	160.5	149.6

Now for a look at various measures for 2011, the preceding decade and the 135 year period.

The Runs per wicket values showed a distinct downward trend from the previous decade of over 5%. It is slightly above the all-Tests figure. There were many below-par performances by fancied teams which accounted for this. The Runs per over figure was only marginally lower. The wickets were taken in about 2 balls fewer keeping with the trend of lowering Runs per wicket.

The Wickets per match numbers showed a distinct increase of about 5% from the 2000-10 decade. However the surprising fact is that this did not show a corresponding increase in Result %. On the contrary there was a drop of 6% from the 2000s. Difficult to explain this.

The Home win % showed a huge drop of 25% from the 2000s decade figure. The away wins showed an increase of about 15%. Maybe the sample size of 39 Tests for 2011 is not big enough. It is possible that the slight drop in home performance of Australia and South Africa contributed to this. It is possible that teams, sand India during 2011, also travel better.

Overs per match was only marginally higher at 336 overs. This comprised of 12 draws at an average of 367 overs (quite a few rain-affected draws) and 17 results at an average of 322 overs. Let us convert this at about 14 overs per hour (especially since dawdling India played over 35% of the Tests), this comes to 23 hours. Add to this an hour of wickets falling and innings changes, we come to around 24 hours. This is around 4 days of play. Remember this is on an average. Let me add that the 2012 has started with only 290 overs per match for the 7 conclusive Tests. That is well below 4 days play. Only one Test, the Adelaide one, reached the fifth day: That too, courtesy, Mr. M.J.Clarke.

There is a sharp drop in 500+ innings, just above 50%, the respective figures standing at 5.4 and 10.2% respectively. For that matter the year 2011 was below the all-Tests average. Quite surprisingly, the sub-100 innings also showed a drop from 2000-10 and all-Tests values. Quite inexplicable.

The Opening partnerships failed miserably during 2011. The average runs scored dropped from nearly 40 to just over 30. It was way below the all-Tests figure. Maybe the Indian openers and Strauss and Hughes contributed to this. Similarly there was a significant drop in the 100+ opening partnerships (once in 16 innings as against once in 11 innings) and the sub-10 partnerships showed a sharp increase. Maybe the new crop of exciting pace bowlers contributed to this. Pattinson, Cummins, Philander, Bracewell, Yadav, Broad et al are going to continue in this vein. Ably supported by the resurgence of Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Andersen, et al. Of course Steyn, Morkel, Zaheer are always there. The other significant reason could be the continuing Twenty-20 approach of the openers.

However the middle-order partnerships for the second, third, fourth and fifth wickets have held firm. This value of 158 is quite close to the 2000-10 value of 160.

9. My own abiding memories of 2011

These are strictly my personal selections.

The match of the year was New Zealand's sevn-run win over Australia. Warner batted as he would never have been expected to. Bracewell bowled as Hadlee did 26 years back. Until the last ball bowled by Bracewell to Lyon, the result was in doubt. As Djokovic told a few weeks later at Melbourne, there should have been two winners. Both teams fought hard to the last ball. A close contender was Australia's redeeming series-equalling win over South Africa at Wanderer's.

The innings of the year was Warner's unbeaten 123, referred to quite a few times already. Warner would go through bad patches in his career. He should only rewind the clock back to 13 December 2011 and Hobart, when he almost climbed Everest through the North face. Amazing thing is that Warner's 180 at Perth might very well be the innings of 2012 and it is going to take some beating.

The bowling performance of the year was Philander's 5 for 15 against Australia. The match was dead and gone, but for Philander. I have never seen 42 balls delivered on a coin. That was McGrath-like.

The most forgettable performance of the year was Sehwag's golden pair at Birmingham. He lasted a round 190 overs less than the 7 English batsmen. That symbolized the Indian English debacle as Dravid's loss of his stumps symbolized six months later.

The bravest performance of 2011 was by Zimbabwe on their comeback. They fought hard and four of their six innings exceeded 300. And this was against Pakistan, New Zealand and Bangladesh.

The non-stories of the year were Tendulkar's ton of tons, the various retirement stories circulated, the complete irrelevance of Champions' League (even though, as a contest, it was far superior to IPL) and the millions of words written on India's free fall (all destined to have no effect).

The Indian Test debacles have been chronicled ad nauseam. However the meltdown of the year was Sri Lanka's 24-over capitulation on the last day at Cardiff.

MS Dhoni comes in two situations next. The sporting gesture of the year was Dhoni's recall of Bell. The cop-out of the year was Dhoni's refusal to go for the win at Roseau, against West Indies.