As the 2011 World Cup tournament proceeded through its 49 matches, it became clear to me that bowlers, particularly spin bowlers, were winning many favourable lbw decisions that they would not have won in previous tournaments. I presume it is unnecessary for me to describe the process whereby a bowler, having unsuccessfully appealed for lbw, was able to have the decision re-visited, and through the microscopic examination of video footage, the initial decision was often reversed.

Using our CSW database software, I have tracked back through all World Cup tournaments since they started in 1975, and from my research, have come up with the following table:

LBW decisions in World Cups

Year	Venue	%lbw	%lbw (quicks)	%lbw (spinners)
1975	England	14.90	18.01	6.06
1979	England	12.38	14.45	0.00
1983	England	11.52	14.61	3.23
1987	Subcontinent	7.01	9.35	6.54
1992	Australasia	6.42	7.08	8.51
1996	Subcontinent	7.59	10.17	6.86
1999	England	14.24	15.15	17.44
2003	South Africa	12.40	13.33	12.89
2007	Caribbean	11.31	11.38	14.76
2011	Subcontinent	16.28	15.34	21.03
Total		11.57	12.79	12.92

The third column (%lbw) gives the number of lbw decisions as a percentage of all dismissals. Until this year, those tournaments held in England clearly gave the greatest incidence of lbw decisions as a proportion. I initially thought this might be as a result of the higher propensity of English umpires to give batsmen out lbw compared with their counterparts in other countries, but unlike the 1975, 1979 and 1983 tournaments, the 1999 event included only two English umpires of the dozen who officiated that year. One can only therefore conclude that English conditions provide a higher likelihood of players being dismissed lbw than in other countries.

The last two columns (%Qlbw and %Slbw) give the number of lbw dismissals as a percentage of all dismissals engineered by “quick” and “spin” bowlers respectively. (The category “quick” includes all bowlers from medium-pace upwards.) One can see that in early years, spin bowlers found it very difficult indeed to win an lbw decision from umpires. In fact, in the first three World Cups, there were only four lbw decisions given to spin bowlers in total, with none at all in 1979! The removal of the tournament to the sub-continent in 1987 doubled the chance of spin bowlers winning lbw decisions, and there was a significant jump again in the 1999 event. This year, there has been an almost 50% rise in the proportion of dismissals won by lbw decisions for spin bowlers compared with the 2007 World Cup, and for the first time, more than one in five dismissals have been earned this way for these bowlers.

The DRS has clearly shown that umpires have been too conservative in considering lbw appeals in the past, and that batsmen have been getting away with murder for years! The higher incidence of lbw dismissals for both spin and quick bowlers is a result not only of the direct intervention of video replays, but also, in all probability, of a realisation by umpires that they are safer in giving out what they originally would have considered to be marginal decisions only a year or two ago. I recall many referrals in this last World Cup by batsmen given out lbw in the hope they would be reprieved– but weren’t.

With batsmen now being at greater risk in being given out lbw at the top level, it will be interesting to see what batsmen will do to counter this danger. Presumably playing straighter, and less “across the line” will be a first strategy, but also coming down the wicket more might be an effective counter. We may expect more stumpings as a result! It is fascinating to watch the game continually evolving.

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.

It is World Cup time and inevitably, most discussions are centred on the tournament and its history. One of the major talking points when it comes to the World Cup is the format. The early exit of India and Pakistan in 2007 has prompted a completely different design. An increased presence of weaker teams in each group is unfortunate and will undoubtedly render many contests meaningless. In a recent discussion about the World Cup, Deepak Jeyaraman, a good friend and colleague from my graduate school in the US, pointed out that the World Cup stats for both Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara are similar when only performances against top teams are considered. He suggested that the overall averages have considerably been boosted because batsmen have amassed plenty against the weaker teams. I found this very interesting and decided to get into the details which revealed some very interesting results and vindicated his statement.

Right from the first World Cup, there have been opportunities provided to smaller teams to compete on the big stage. While this idea is not wrong, it creates many opportunities for batsmen to make hay and register massive scores. In earlier World Cups, there were one or two weaker teams, but in recent times, there have been three or four such teams in every tournament, thus creating every opportunity for batsmen to set records aplenty. Of the 44 scores over 300 in the World Cup, 20 have been made against the weaker teams. Of the 41 times teams have won by a margin of over 100 runs, 21 have come against the minnows. A detailed look into the batting performances of top scorers in World Cups clearly points to a run-glut against the smaller teams.

Despite the win over Australia in their first match and the early troubles they caused to India, Zimbabwe were comfortable to beat in the 1983 and 1987 tournaments. They were far more competitive from the 1992 edition onwards. Bangladesh and Kenya have caused ripples, but are not a consistent force in global tournaments. When a minimum of 750 runs against top teams is considered, only Viv Richards makes the cut. His outstanding World Cup career can be appreciated even more because he averages over 66 against top teams during his period. Tendulkar, on the other hand, averages just over 45 against top teams, which is far lower than his overall average of nearly 58. Three of his four hundreds have come against Kenya and Namibia. While Tendulkar has made nearly a third of his World Cup runs against the weaker teams, Sourav Ganguly has scored over 50% of his runs against the minnows. Except in the cases of Ricky Ponting and Lara, the averages of most batsmen have been considerably boosted due to their ‘brilliant’ batting against the minnows.

**In the 1975-1987 range, ZImbabwe and the other teams like Canada and East Africa are considered weak teams. From 1992-2007, Zimbabwe has been fairly competitive, but along with other smaller teams (Netherlands, Namibia, Scotland, UAE etc), Kenya and Bangladesh, despite an occasional upset, have been classified as weak teams.

Best batsmen in World Cups (matches against top teams)-min 750 runs scored

Batsman	Matches	Runs	Average	100	50	Overall Matches	Overall Runs	Overall Average	100	50
Viv Richards	20	997	66.46	3	5	23	1013	63.31	3	5
Ricky Ponting	29	1324	50.92	3	6	39	1537	48.03	4	6
Herschelle Gibbs	17	751	50.06	2	5	25	1067	56.15	2	8
Mark Waugh	19	774	48.37	3	3	22	1004	52.84	4	4
Sachin Tendulkar	28	1173	45.11	1	10	36	1796	57.93	4	13
Brian Lara	26	1005	43.69	2	6	34	1225	42.24	2	7
Aravinda de Silva	24	767	34.86	1	6	35	1064	36.68	2	6
Sanath Jayasuriya	30	860	30.71	2	5	38	1165	34.26	3	6

The approach to batting was very different in the early World Cups with scores between 150 and 250 being quite competitive even against top teams. Good bowling conditions and a less aggressive batting style meant that the run rate in the first two World Cups was under four runs per over. The scoring rate went up slightly in the 1983 World Cup as teams began to realize the benefit of faster scoring after playing more ODIs. The 1987 World Cup saw the overall run rate rise to a high of 4.87 because of the excellent batting conditions in the subcontinent. Teams switched to a more conventional approach of preserving wickets in the beginning before accelerating in the final overs in the 1992 edition which saw the advent of field restrictions. Sri Lanka’s stunning early-over assaults set the tone for a high-scoring tournament in 1996. The 1999 World Cup in England swung the balance towards the bowlers by providing much more challenging batting conditions. However, the last two tournaments have clearly been in favour of the batsmen. 25 scores over 300 have been made in the 2003 and 2007 World Cup and it seems highly likely that this trend is going to continue.

It is also very interesting to observe the trend of fifty-plus scores, While the 1975 tournament saw a fifty-plus score every six innings, the number went up to one every 8.5 innings in the 1979 tournament. The 1987 World Cup saw the best conversion rate with fifties being scored once in less than six innings. The high figure for the last three editions can be explained by the presence of weaker teams which have struggled to put up substantial scores. The fours-per-match figure is highest for the 1975 World Cup, which is again surprising considering the approach in the early editions. The percentage of boundary runs is also very high and is comparable to later tournaments. The 1992 tournament in Australia saw fewer boundaries per match which is understandable given the size of the grounds in Australia, but since 1996, there has been a consistent increase in the boundary run percentage in each World Cup.

The conversion rate of fifties to centuries was the poorest in the 1979 World Cup with only two centuries being scored compared to 27 half-centuries. The 1996 and 2003 World Cups were the best in terms of the conversion rate with a century every four fifties. However, the 1992 World Cup was another tournament where centuries were far fewer. Only eight of the 92 fifty-plus scores were converted into centuries.

Batting stats from the World Cups

Year	Matches	Innings	Runs	Runs/innings	50+ scores	Inns/fifty	50s:100s	fours/match	Boundary runs	% runs in boundaries	Run rate
1975	15	258	5767	22.35	41	6.29	5.83	38.33	1644	42.79	3.91
1979*	14	247	4805	19.45	29	8.51	13.50	26.35	2468	34.21	3.54
1983*	27	494	11024	22.31	65	7.60	7.12	32.70	4288	38.89	4.08
1987	27	478	11609	24.28	80	5.97	6.27	33.85	4118	35.47	4.87
1992*	39	647	13821	21.36	92	7.03	10.50	28.17	4954	35.84	4.42
1996*	36	601	14239	23.69	85	7.07	4.31	35.11	5944	41.74	4.67
1999	42	737	14981	20.32	86	8.56	6.81	32.78	6426	42.89	4.47
2003	52	902	18873	20.92	110	8.20	4.23	34.48	8768	46.45	4.76
2007	51	885	19800	22.37	131	6.75	5.55	35.45	9470	47.82	4.95

*The number of boundaries is not exact for the 1979, 1983, 1992 and 1996 World Cups

The World Cups held in England have been the best for bowlers. While the 98 matches across the four editions in England have seen 51 hauls of four wickets or more, the 205 matches in the other five World Cups have seen just 77 four-plus wicket hauls. The wickets per match figure is also slightly higher in the four World Cups held in England and is much lower in the two World Cups held in the subcontinent and the 1992 World Cup. On the flip side, the swinging conditions in England made it much more difficult for bowlers to control their line. While the relaxed rules in the early editions were responsible for fewer extras, the tournament in 1999 saw the most extras. Nearly 47 extras were conceded on an average per match in the 1999 World Cup. The first five places on the list of innings with the most extras are from the 1999 World Cup, with India conceding 51 extras in the three-run defeat to Zimbabwe and 44 against Kenya.

Bowling stats from World Cups

Year	Matches	Wickets	Wickets/match	4W+ hauls	Total Extras	Extras/match	Economy
1975	15	194	12.93	9	395	26.33	3.66
1979	14	184	13.14	7	363	25.92	3.29
1983	27	370	13.70	14	1022	37.85	3.73
1987	27	321	11.88	9	913	33.81	4.66
1992	39	447	11.46	8	1286	32.97	4.24
1996	36	411	11.41	8	986	27.38	4.52
1999	42	548	13.04	21	1982	47.19	4.32
2003	52	658	12.65	35	1568	30.15	4.63
2007	51	689	13.50	17	1533	30.05	4.84

Over the years, the number of left handers in teams has constantly increased. In almost every form of cricket, left handers seem to enjoy a distinct advantage and have generally outperformed the right handers. When performances in World Cups are analysed, the numbers are not quite straightforward. While the left-handed batsmen outperformed their counterparts in the first World Cup, they were not quite a force in the second edition. After a far better performance in the 1983 World Cup, their showing in a batting-friendly 1987 edition was much poorer than the right handers who did superbly. Left handers made just six fifty-plus scores in the 1987 World Cup while right handers made over 73. The performances of right handers and left handers was fairly even in the 1992 World Cup, but since then, left-handed batsmen have consistently averaged more and made fifty-plus scores far more consistently. The only anomaly has been the recent World Cup which was again dominated by right handers, who averaged more and scored faster than left handers.

Right handers in World Cups (top order 1-7 only)

Year	RHB(players)	Innings	RHB(runs)	RHB(avg)	RHB(50+)	RHB(SR)	Inns/50+
1975	56	153	4045	30.87	30	58.48	5.10
1979	57	144	3529	27.14	25	55.45	5.76
1983	54	262	6956	29.35	46	60.55	5.69
1987	65	317	9641	34.80	73	75.48	4.34
1992	65	374	9733	30.22	69	66.89	5.40
1996	82	325	8875	31.81	55	71.80	5.90
1999	83	396	8965	25.32	54	63.63	7.33
2003	97	454	10861	26.95	67	72.82	6.77
2007	98	422	11467	32.30	82	77.90	5.14

Left handers in World Cups (top order 1-7 only)

Year	LHB(players)	Innings	LHB(runs)	LHB(avg)	LHB(50+)	LHB(SR)	Inns/50+
1975	13	41	1088	31.08	10	74.11	4.10
1979	13	32	800	30.76	4	54.86	8.00
1983	18	91	2531	33.74	17	64.45	5.35
1987	10	43	1159	28.26	6	62.04	7.16
1992	19	120	2978	28.09	23	66.22	5.21
1996	27	138	4263	36.75	30	74.96	4.60
1999	29	156	4429	34.06	29	68.46	5.37
2003	41	207	5680	32.64	38	73.69	5.44
2007	41	240	6553	30.05	49	74.98	4.89

The first three World Cups in England hardly saw spinners being used in most matches. Pace bowlers outperformed spinners comfortably, picking up more wickets at a much better average. The fourth World Cup in 1987 however, was held in the spin-friendly subcontinent. In this edition, the performance of pace bowlers and spinners was much more even. Martin Crowe’s remarkable strategy of opening the bowling with a spinner in 1992 stands out in memory in a tournament which was dominated by pace. The 1996 World Cup was the best for spinners as they picked up six hauls of four wickets or more as compared to just two by fast bowlers. 1999 and 2003 were much better for pace bowlers as they picked up 47 four-wicket hauls compared to just nine for spinners. However, the 2007 tournament played on much slower wickets in the Caribbean meant that spinners were quite effective. Going by past records, the 2011 World Cup is again going to be dominated by teams with quality spin options.

Pace v Spin in World Cups

Year	Pace(wickets)	Pace(avg)	Pace(4W+)	Pace(ER)	Spin(wickets)	Spin(avg)	Spin(4W+)	Spin(ER)
1975	155	27.18	8	3.63	25	45.56	0	3.75
1979	166	24.57	7	3.30	8	65.25	0	3.27
1983	310	28.59	11	3.73	47	36.44	3	3.61
1987	213	36.39	7	4.84	106	37.13	2	4.34
1992	344	31.58	8	4.23	94	35.29	0	4.16
1996	228	37.45	2	4.52	168	32.94	6	4.47
1999	461	27.72	18	4.23	87	40.00	3	4.64
2003	482	27.70	29	4.67	186	32.13	6	4.55
2007	454	31.37	12	4.85	197	32.36	5	4.79

The last table looks at dismissal stats from the World Cups. While the number of bowled and leg before dismissals per match has been definitely higher in the tournaments in England owing to the bowling conditions, the tournaments in the subcontinent have seen fewer lbw dismissals per match. The number of catches by a wicketkeeper per match is also far higher in the World Cups played in England and South Africa when compared to those played on the flatter tracks in the subcontinent and the West Indies. Another noticeable factor is the consistent increase in the number of run-out dismissals since the first two World Cups (except the 1975 final, which saw five run outs in the Australia innings) which can be attributed to the fact that batsmen allow fewer dot balls and focus on much more aggressive running.

Dismissal stats in World Cups

Year	Matches	Bowled	Caught(keeper)	LBW	Run-out
1975	15	64	30	31	14
1979	14	50	30	25	18
1983	27	86	69	47	38
1987	27	101	46	27	64
1992	39	97	76	33	67
1996	36	107	53	37	63
1999	42	116	87	85	49
2003	52	133	130	92	45
2007	51	138	97	82	67