The top performances at the T20 World Cup: a review

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Let’s analyse the top performances of the 2010 edition of the ICC World Twenty20 held in the West Indies.

In this article, I will be looking at the top batting, bowling, all-round and team performances at the recently concluded T20 World Cup and briefly explain why these are at the top.

BATTING: Hussey’s 60 (in 24 balls) vs Pakistan in the semi-final (613.4 rtgpts)

This has moved to the top, ahead of many a higher innings, not just of the T20 WC standings but of all T20 International matches played, because of the following reasons.

- The scoring rate (250)
- The huge target being chased (192)
- The quality of Pakistani bowling attack – Aamer/Afridi/Ajmal
- The position at entry (105 for 5 in 12.4)
- The high % of team runs scored while at crease (60 out of 92)
- The two key partnerships with Smith and Johnson
- The higher weight (115) for the match.

BOWLING: Langeveldt’s 4 for 19 vs Pakistan in Super Eight match (525.2 rtgpts)

- All four top wickets
- Bowling accuracy (4.75 compared to team’s 7.4)
- Restriction of Pakistan to a reasonably low score of 148
- Quality of Pakistan batting – reasonably good
- The higher weight (105) for the match.

This was the top bowling performance despite the fact that South Africa lost the match. It would have been higher if his batsmen had completed the task.

ALL-ROUND: Gayle’s 98 (off 66) and 1 for 22 vs India (605.5 rtgpts)

- Excellent batting performance (541.5 rtgpts)
       Big innings, S/R of nearly 150, high % of team score et al.
- Competent bowling performance (64 rtgpts)
        Key wicket of Raina
- No fielding points
- The higher weight (105) for the match.

Note: Hussey’s performance was not considered since certain minimum criteria have to be reached to qualify as an all-round performance.

TEAM: England’s final win over Australia (701.2 rtgpts)

- Bowling: Strong Australian batsmen restricted to 147
- Batting: Target of 148 reached against strong Australian bowling attack.
- Resources: 70% of wicket resources still available
- Resources: 15% of overs resources still available.
       (Estimated English score of 180+)
- The higher weight (125) for the match.

Adam Gilchrist vs Herschelle Gibbs?

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Our expert delves into some interesting player comparisons and brings you an analysis of a batsman’s ‘beta’ value.

This is a misleading title, but I hope it is at least intriguing.

What sort of comparison can we make between Adam Gilchrist and Herschelle Gibbs? Well, both are aggressive openers, both have left their very best days behind them, and both open for Deccan Chargers leaving poor old VVS Laxman behind.

So let’s talk of their brand of aggression. Gilchrist likes to get on from the very first ball; if Gilchrist scores a century, you expect his first 50 to be a lot faster than his next 50. Also, the longer Gilchrist stays at the crease, the more likely he appears to get out. With Gibbs, the opposite is likely to be the case. He looks vulnerable to start with, but the longer he stays, the less likely he seems to get out.

Gilchrist explodes early, Gibbs tends to explode late. Remember the amazing momentum Gibbs gave South Africa in their record-breaking ODI chase?

And remember how Gilchrist blew away a wonderful opportunity to hit the first ODI double century long before Sachin Tendulkar reached that pinnacle?

Let’s consider another ODI comparison: Ricky Ponting vs Sachin Tendulkar. Ricky Ponting tends to kick off much faster: he has usually scored 12-15 runs in the first 10 balls in faces: a pulled boundary, a few energetically run 2s characterize Ponting’s arrival at the crease. But the longer he stays, the more he starts looking vulnerable. Tendulkar, on the other hand, is always more circumspect when he starts off an ODI innings. A bad ball will be driven for a four, but Tendulkar always gives himself a few balls to settle down. We associate Tendulkar more with rousing finishes (remember Sharjah in 1998, or remember how quickly he advanced from 120 to 170 in his double ton innings recently). The longer Tendulkar bats in ODIs, the more confident you feel about his durability.

Finally, think of someone like Mohd Azharuddin (Remember him? Remember his enchanting artistry?) or Jacques Kallis. These are batsmen who bat with practically the same momentum and vulnerability right through their ODI innings. They appear to bat with the same attitude whether they are facing their 5th ball or their 55th.

In a remarkable analysis, undertaken a few years ago, MRLN Panchanana and T Krishnan (who taught me statistics 35 years ago at Indian Statistical Institute) asked the following question: What is the relationship between a batsman’s score and his chance of getting out in ODI cricket?

We won’t get into the specifics of how the duo fitted a Weibull distribution to the ODI scores of the leading ODI batsmen around 2000, but we’ll merely say that it all boils down to a batsman’s ‘beta’ value: a beta value more than 1 means that the more runs a batsman scores, the more likely he is to get out. A beta value of less than 1 means the opposite; the more the batsman scores, the less likely he is to get out.

The table below lists the ‘beta’ values of some leading ODI batsmen. Notice that Gilchrist has a ‘beta’ value of 1.16, while Gibbs has a value of 0.93. This seems to confirm the impression that we have formed about their batting styles.

Mohd. Azharuddin	0.99
Michael Bevan	1.25
Allan Border	0.99
Chris Cairns	1.18
Aravinda de Silva	0.94
Rahul Dravid	1.12
Andrew Flintoff	1.10
Andrew Flower	1.09
Sourav Ganguly	0.97
Herschelle Gibbs	0.93
Adam Gilchrist	1.16
Inzamam-Ul-Haq	1.11
Matthew Hayden	1.19
Desmond Haynes	0.94
Sanath Jayasuriya	0.96
Jacques Kallis	1.01
Brian Lara	1.04
Ricky Ponting	1.14
Kumar Sangakkara	1.09
Virendra Sehwag	1.04
Sachin Tendulkar	0.92
Mark Waugh	1.08
Steve Waugh	1.09