Ind/Eng WC Game: 27th Feb 2010: Where Indian Batting Failed

A team that scores 300 batting first would normally have reasons to be happy with that kind of effort. India scored 338 against England at the Chinnaswamy Stadium on Sunday. Content and happy at a good batting effort? No! At the risk of sounding ridiculous, one felt not enough was done by the Indian batting.

Let us crunch some numbers and see if one is justified in taking that line.

* The Indian innings had 140 dot balls (46% of the total deliveries in the innings) and 109 deliveries that resulted in singles (36%). Effectively 249 deliveries (82%) got just 109 runs. The score of 338 was thanks to 35 boundaries and seven sixes which adds up to 182 runs from just 42 deliveries. Flashes of brilliance, but overall pedestrian?

* England had 111 dot balls (37%) and in spite of just 29 boundaries (10% of total deliveries faced for 116 runs) and only 4 sixes (1% for 24 runs, but at a crucial juncture) bettered India with 134 single run deliveries and 22 deliveries of 2 runs each.

Looking at the overs and runs scored, India had 21 overs where they scored 4 runs or less, and accumulated just 64 runs. These included 7 bowling Powerplay overs and three batting Powerplay overs. The combined 10 Powerplay overs fetched India a measly 30 runs! Tendulkar played 29 deliveries in the Powerplay for 12 runs, Gautam Gambhir eight deliveries for four runs, Yuvraj managed seven off 15 deliveries and Dhoni seven runs off eight balls.

In comparison, England had 19 overs where they scored four runs or less and accumulated 62 runs in these overs. These included five bowling Powerplay overs where they managed just 14 runs, and five batting Powerplay overs that fetched just 25 runs, totaling 10 Powerplay overs for 39 runs. This poor performance, however, is far better that what India managed.

The higher number of dot balls didn’t help India’s cause. England, with lesser number of dot balls and higher number of single and two run deliveries (134 and 22 respectively), scored 178 runs compared to India’s 141 runs (109 singles and 16 two’s). England were simply more industrious and effective.

How Tendulkar fared

Reviewing Sachin Tendulkar’s innings is interesting. His innings had 57 dot balls (50%), 36 singles (31%), 7 two’s (6%), 10 fours (9%) and 5 sixes (4%). Ten fours and five sixes fetched Tendulkar 70 runs and the other 100 balls faced by him fetched 50 runs. A glorious, brilliant hundred, or a hundred with 15 brilliant hits? Or, 13% brilliant and 87% pedestrian? A dominant innings or 15 dominant supershots? It is incongruous to point a finger at a master batsman who had a 100 to his name, but one cannot but ask some fact-based questions.

Andrew Strauss, the other centurion, had 55 dot balls (48% and close to Tendulkar) but 62 singles (54%), 9 two’s (8%) and one six (1%) plus 18 fours (16%) which gave him 72 runs. Less fancied, less breathtaking with the big hits but more effective overall? Strauss simply ensured England never had a high run-rate to chase, which was at 6.70 when the last 10 overs began for England at a comfortable 272 for two.

Indeed 338 looked a big score, but the fact of the day was that India batted brilliantly for 42 balls and the remaining 265 deliveries had England calling the shots. England just botched a win after Strauss’s departure.

This was originally written for www.cricketcountry.com

Should the measurement criteria change for cricketing performances?

The game of cricket has seen changes over the last few decades. From a pure sport that was considered a “gentleman’s game” it has today changed into versions that are different from traditional cricket, and not quite gentlemanly is the behavior of the practitioners of the game. The purist would argue that cricket is not the same and has predominantly become a component of visual entertainment.

The yardsticks for reflecting cricketer’s performances have, however, not changed over the years. The measurement primarily continues to be the number of runs scored, batting averages, number of wickets taken, bowling averages and the like. Other criteria such as number of games played, hundreds, double hundreds or fifties scored, batting and bowling strike rates, catches taken etc are tracked, and in the age of information technology there is more granular data available such as the bowlers runs have been scored off, the time taken to score runs, number of deliveries played and much more. In time to come, data such as the distance covered by sixes may also get recorded, as these statistics, whether reliable or not, are being announced during commentaries.

Statistics have been questioned from a perspective whether they really convey the real picture. In a world where perception often scores over reality, the manner in which statistics are compiled for cricket records could probably do with some changes or modifications or enhancements.

What factors are overlooked when we look at vanilla statistics? The condition of the wicket never ever gets weightage. The quality of the bowling attack never gets reflected. The situation of the game under which runs were scored or wickets were taken never gets reflected. How much do you rate an innings where a batsman hauls the side from a precarious 15 for 5 in the second innings on the fourth day of a Test, with a knock of 91, to lead the side to an honorable draw?

Will statistics reflect this higher than three other hundreds that were scored in the same game? How much value does a match-winning, unbeaten knock of 73 that bails the side from a situation of 76 for 5, and later 124 for 8, in pursuit of 216 runs get? How will it be compared to bigger knocks in the same game in the first innings, when years down the line someone looks at just numbers? Why is that we have fans who at times critic Sachin Tendulkar hundreds inspite of his undeniable greatness? Data on home ground performance and overseas performances, where conditions differ are available, but these still do not consider factors that pose a challenge to the technique and temperament of a player, or the conditions or extremely adverse game situations from which a player emerges creditably. Whilst this is particularly relevant in Test matches, even T20 or ODI game statistics do not give a fair presentation of the contribution to the particular game.

In the Super Six fixture between Australia and New Zealand in the 2003 World Cup, Shane Bond had the Aussies tottering with a spell that read 6-0-20-3 and had Australia at 41 for 3 off 11 overs. He came back at 78 for 4 off 22 overs and picked two wickets in the 25th over, and another in the 27th over before finally finishing with figures of 10-2-23-6 leaving Australia at 88 for seven in the 29th over.

Thereafter came a recovery act between Michael Bevan and Andy Bichel which carried Australia to 185 for eight 8 in the 48th over. Enter Brett Lee. Australia 192 for eight at the end of 49 overs and Andy Bichel on strike. Lee went on to hit two sixes off the last two balls to carry Australia over the 200 mark.

John Buchanan has remarked that those two towering sixes that Lee signed the innings off was crucial from a morale perspective, and helped Australia to defend a total of 208, with Lee himself picking five for 42 in a Aussie win. Buchanan’s point was that those two hits changed the complete complexion of the game. How much credit do batting records give Lee for those 15 runs off 11 balls?

Take today’s T20 games. How does one value the wickets taken by a bowler at the start of an innings as against wickets taken towards the end, where there is a charge for runs with batsman throwing their bats around? Or, which performance between a run-a- ball or better 50 at the top of the order vis-à-vis a quick 15 or 20 runs at the end when the more experienced or able bowlers are in the attack, deserve higher rating and applause? Do statistics reflect how much these contributions affected the result of the game?

Does a stifling spell of bowling that facilitates fall of wickets at the other end to a different bowler get recorded? How does a brilliant performance as a fielder get recorded in statistics? As mere numbers or as game changers?

What then is a better yardstick to record performances? Or how can performances be recorded giving weightage to the playing conditions, quality of opposition and situation of the game under which a player performed? How do we differentiate good performances versus great performances? How do we assign more value to an individual score under 100 runs under extreme situations in comparison to perhaps a century in the same game, that, in the context of the game was not as valuable as the below 100 score? How do we give due credit a terrific but wicketless spell of a bowler that helped wickets at the other end?

In addition to the present statistics, can a pool of points (say 100 per game) be disturbed amongst the players based on their performance and the impact they have had on the game? How will the allocation happen? Anything subjective is always questioned. Can parameters be evolved which will be a guideline for such point distribution?

A start may have to be made somewhere for the present system of statistics just hinges on quantity, and the qualitative aspects of performances just aren’t getting recorded in a formal manner.

(This article was written for first being published on www.cricketnation.com)