PDA

View Full Version : Will the Real ODI Bowling Powerhouse(s) Please Stand Up?


al Furqaan
January 21, 2011, 12:47 AM
So we know that there isn't an attack outside of South Africa that can strike fear into Test batsmen, especially since the Pakistani firm of Asif, Amir, and Idiots have gone under. But what about ODI cricket? Which teams, if any, can claim to be bowling at a class apart from everyone else?

This bit of [tedious] research delves into the numbers, pure numbers, to attempt to answer this question.

I've only taken the liberty to bother ranking the Fine 9 teams at the top of the ODI charts.

What I've done is filter cricinfo's stats since the last ODI World Cup (from April 29, 2007 onwards), and I've gone through and ranked the first 5 bowlers from each of the 9 teams. I only considered three statistics as important in ODIs: wickets, bowling average, and bowling economy.

For wickets, I just took the top wicket takers, without regard for a minimum number of overs bowled. For both averages and econs, I decided to only bother ranking bowlers who bowled at least 50 overs over the past 4 years.

As a result, the rankings do reflect the fact that some batsman (JP Duminy) got counted in South Africa's bowling ranking, but a bowler like Johan Botha was left out since he didn't bowl enough to make the top 5 in a certain stat category. But this strengthens the research all the more: this is about which team is the best bowling team as a unit. It doesn't matter if its part time Ashraful serving up double bouncers, or if its a specialist strike bowler shining the albino cherry against his kit.

Also, only players who are on their team's final World Cup squads have been included. This will show who is the strongest side in the world cup, not necessarily in ODIs as a whole.

So here it is:

Wicket Taking (no. in parenthesis is the average ranking of top 5 players)

1) Sri Lanka (21)
2) India (22)
3) Australia (25)
4) England (27)
5) Pakistan (32)
6) South Africa (40)
7) Bangladesh (44)
8) New Zealand (57)
9) West Indies (63)

mean rank = 37, SD = 15

Only Sri Lanka falls one standard deviation away from the mean and even then just on the margin. Sri Lanka would be the most potent bowling attack. India is very high on the list, but if you realize that they play a lot of games, you realize they have plenty of chances to get all those wickets.
On the other hand, both New Zealand and West Indies, are well more than one standard deviation poorer than the other teams. They have the most toothless bowling attacks, but they also play far fewer games than most other sides.


Bowling Average

1) Australia (26)
2) Sri Lanka (36)
3) West Indies (67)
4) South Africa (71)
5) Pakistan (77)
6) India (93)
7) Bangladesh (96)
8) England (100)
9) New Zealand (108)

mean rank = 75, SD = 28

Australia are clearly the best bowling unit around, at least based on the guys they picked for the World Cup. Sri Lanka join them as the only teams more than one standard deviation better than the mean. In fact, Australia are almost 2 standard deviations better (1.75). India is quite mediocre, which given the nature of their home pitches and their personnel, is hardly surprising. Interestingly, we're better than England (probably due to playing a lot of minnows). But New Zealand once again show why they are such a weak ODI team at the moment.


Bowling Economy

1) New Zealand (61)
2) Sri Lanka (65)
3) Bangladesh (69)
4) West Indies (75)
5) Australia (78)
6) Pakistan (91)
7) South Africa (100)
8) India (114)
9) England (128)

mean rank = 87, SD = 23

Here, New Zealand and Sri Lanka are well ahead of anyone else. Bangladesh has also done quite well, due to playing a lot of matches at home against inept batting sides like New Zealand and Zimbabwe. India, once again is almost last, and along with England are more than one standard deviation in the wrong direction.

Now to combine these 3 important markers and find the average of the average ranks. This will show which team is the absolute best bowling side. My guess is Sri Lanka will win, followed somewhat closely by Australia.

Overall Bowling Strength

1) Sri Lanka (41)
2) Australia (43)
3) Pakistan (67)
4) West Indies (68)
5t) South Africa (70)
5t) Bangladesh (70)
7) New Zealand (75)
8) India (76)
9) England (85)

mean 66, SD = 15

Sri Lanka and Australia are the best, everyone else is mediocre, with England being the worst and by some margin. Interesting indeed.

al Furqaan
January 21, 2011, 12:49 AM
Doc Z, as the WC approaches, please move this thread to the world cup subforum...i will remind you about a week before the big day.

irampool
January 21, 2011, 01:12 AM
Great Research indeed Al Furqaan!

rinathq
January 21, 2011, 01:20 AM
Great research..... Our coaches should push our bowlers so we dunt even have to worry about batting. Take an extra allrounder and cut out a batsman, this will allow more spells and variation
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition

RazabQ
January 21, 2011, 01:39 AM
Asaad, stats can be misleading. Right now I'd rate the Saffers & English attack as the most potent one around - for ODIs. England with their tall pacers in Broad & Tremlett and swing artists in Anderson, Bresnan & Shehzad and a wicket taking spinner in Swann and a BDesque spinner in Yardy have a very nice ODI attack. Saffers have a dream attack pair in Messrs Morkel & Steyn, an underrated trundler in Tsotsobe and a dart artist in Botha and a wicket taking spinner in Tahir. Lanka, provided Mendis/Randiv + Murali fire and Dilhara sorts out his no-ball issue are a'ight.

The rest, including BD - meh.

Zunaid
January 21, 2011, 01:40 AM
Asaad = you have to normalize the stats, otherwise the raw numbers will deceive.

al Furqaan
January 21, 2011, 01:56 AM
Asaad, stats can be misleading. Right now I'd rate the Saffers & English attack as the most potent one around - for ODIs. England with their tall pacers in Broad & Tremlett and swing artists in Anderson, Bresnan & Shehzad and a wicket taking spinner in Swann and a BDesque spinner in Yardy have a very nice ODI attack. Saffers have a dream attack pair in Messrs Morkel & Steyn, an underrated trundler in Tsotsobe and a dart artist in Botha and a wicket taking spinner in Tahir. Lanka, provided Mendis/Randiv + Murali fire and Dilhara sorts out his no-ball issue are a'ight.

The rest, including BD - meh.

tremlett isn't a part of the world cup squad...broad is the top wicket taker of this period and is boosting england's ranks.

a lot of the "misleading" can be from the fact that some players are relatively new, and haven't taken as many wickets.

Doc, this is just based off the ranks of the players' statistics. I can take the numbers you see in this thread (the ranks and not actual statistics) and turn them into z-scores to make it easier on the eyes.

shakibrulz
January 21, 2011, 03:44 AM
Indian bowlers are underrated one feels, we have enough bowling resources to compliment our batting lineup. India to win the world cup, tbh :-p

On a serious note, I would rate Aussies>Srilanka>Saffers=England>India>Bangladesh>Kiwis>Windies atm.

BANFAN
January 21, 2011, 03:45 AM
Overall Bowling Strength

1) Sri Lanka (41)
2) Australia (43)
3) Pakistan (67)
4) West Indies (68)
5t) South Africa (70)
5t) Bangladesh (70)
7) New Zealand (75)
8) India (76)
9) England (85)

Tie between SA and BD?
Sl on top and Eng at the bottom?
WI $ # 4 & Ind @ # 8 ?

Too many questions and something must be wrong some where.
Doesnt really reflect the actual bowling strength, IMO.

Murad
January 21, 2011, 03:50 AM
Agree with you Banfan bhai, something is wrong. Aga matha kisu bujhinai..

lamisa
January 21, 2011, 04:03 AM
great effort asaad.the pakistan bowling lineup shouldn't be underestimated,.though they dont have amir and asif,they still have afridi,ajmal,shoaib akter,umar gul and sohail tanvir...

Mahir
January 21, 2011, 04:06 AM
a lot of the "misleading" can be from the fact that some players are relatively new, and haven't taken as many wickets.


Ah. There it is. The current strength of these squads are complemented by these "relatively new" bowlers, and that's where these stats totally disguise the actual picture. Perhaps the timeline you used could be modified to include the performances of the current bowlers over the period of time they've been in action ? I would rather second shakibrulz's ratings for overall ODI bowling strength:

SAf > Eng=Aus > SL=Ind > Ban=Pak > NZ=WI

But a good dig with the numbers, nonetheless, Asaad bhai :)

firstlane
January 21, 2011, 08:07 AM
On a serious note, I would rate Aussies>Srilanka>Saffers=England>India>Bangladesh>Kiwis>Windies atm.

didnt know paks were out of the world cup. otherwise they would fit somewhere in between even with their broken line up.

Eshen
January 21, 2011, 09:04 AM
Great thread!

Asaad, can you please filter out stats for ODIs played on subcontinent for the time period?

al Furqaan
January 21, 2011, 10:43 AM
Ah. There it is. The current strength of these squads are complemented by these "relatively new" bowlers, and that's where these stats totally disguise the actual picture. Perhaps the timeline you used could be modified to include the performances of the current bowlers over the period of time they've been in action ? I would rather second shakibrulz's ratings for overall ODI bowling strength:

SAf > Eng=Aus > SL=Ind > Ban=Pak > NZ=WI

But a good dig with the numbers, nonetheless, Asaad bhai :)

but its going to be those relatively new bowlers bowling in the world cup.

Aussies are already up there according to the stats i dug up, but Nathen Bracken and his superb stats aren't boosting them because he won't be at the Cup next month.

I may have made some mistakes, but I was fairly meticulous in doing what i did.

Also bear in mind the stats only compare the top 5 bowlers from each country. So a guy like Jaques Kallis might not have been included unless he was in the top 5 from SA in the last 4 years (JP Duminy got counted ahead of him in something). I tried to use minimum of 50 overs bowled as a filter, but perhaps using 100 overs was better.

Rabz
January 21, 2011, 12:38 PM
Are bhais, eto bujha bujhir ki dorkar ?
The numbers were being played on and we ranked 5th alongside South Africa.
Thats all I need to know.

Great stuff Asaad.

al Furqaan
January 21, 2011, 01:37 PM
Tie between SA and BD?
.

why not? we've played 31 games against ZIM + NZ since the last world cup. I'd expect our stats to be somewhat decent.

al Furqaan
January 21, 2011, 01:39 PM
Great thread!

Asaad, can you please filter out stats for ODIs played on subcontinent for the time period?

yeah, I can do that. I may, depending on if I have the time, do one with just the F9 sides of the world.

RazabQ
January 21, 2011, 01:45 PM
Asaad, I think the stats are not overly useful indicators here. You have to go by current form and potential for form when judging potency and 4 years worth of stats would merely support the latter factor. Pitch/weather conditions are a big factor as well. Just because a certain attack has thrived in pace-friendly conditions (like Australia) does not mean it will do well in the subcontinent. A more "accurate" way of thinking would be to take all the bowlers in the upcoming WC and do a ranking of which of them would
a) you'd least like to face in terms of preserving your wicket
b) least likely to score off

Combine those two to one composite score (60/40 weighing perhaps) and then the team with most bowlers in the top of that list is your most potent attack, and so on so forth.

Zunaid
January 21, 2011, 01:47 PM
why not? we've played 31 games against ZIM + NZ since the last world cup. I'd expect our stats to be somewhat decent.

I'll repeat my earlier comment about normalization. If you do not take into account opponent's rank, you'll get such patently counterintuitive results.

al Furqaan
January 21, 2011, 01:55 PM
I'll repeat my earlier comment about normalization. If you do not take into account opponent's rank, you'll get such patently counterintuitive results.

that is far beyond my scope...because ranks of teams may change "real time" i.e from match to match. 4 years of ODIs x 9 teams x 5 bowlers per team = thousands of pieces of data which then have to "weighted" based on the strength of oppossition. i'm not even sure of how i could begin to normalize such vast data mathematically speaking.

far easier is to just use statistics obtained against the 9 teams and leaving minnows aside. then you will see bangladesh ranked very near the bottom. i don't have any problems with this. and it will offer a truer picture.

but I don't think AUS/SL will be toppled from the top even when that is done. lets not forget that although the current aussies can't wipe the rears of the 99-07 cup winners, they are still the #1 ranked ODI side, and by some distance.

for ultimate form, you could only use stats from the last 6 months, but then bangaldesh would prolly be first since we destroyed NZ and ZIM.

al Furqaan
January 21, 2011, 01:57 PM
Asaad, I think the stats are not overly useful indicators here. You have to go by current form and potential for form when judging potency and 4 years worth of stats would merely support the latter factor. Pitch/weather conditions are a big factor as well. Just because a certain attack has thrived in pace-friendly conditions (like Australia) does not mean it will do well in the subcontinent. A more "accurate" way of thinking would be to take all the bowlers in the upcoming WC and do a ranking of which of them would
a) you'd least like to face in terms of preserving your wicket
b) least likely to score off

Combine those two to one composite score (60/40 weighing perhaps) and then the team with most bowlers in the top of that list is your most potent attack, and so on so forth.

so basically we'll be looking at strike rates and econs?

that sounds easy to do, and meaningful at the same time...will do. thanks. it also makes bowling average an irrelevant statistic.

Zeeshan
January 21, 2011, 01:58 PM
Asaad bhai, do you like cricket?

Then repeat after me: I like cricket.

Eshen
January 22, 2011, 01:45 AM
Here is ODI bowling stats against top 9 batting sides for last one year, from matches played on subcontinent -

<table class="engineTable"><thead><tr class="headlinks"><th class="left" nowrap="nowrap">Team (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=team;spanmin1= 22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bo wling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">Players (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=player_count;s panmin1=22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=results ;type=bowling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">Mat (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=matches;spanmi n1=22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type =bowling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">Inns (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=innings_bowled ;spanmin1=22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=resul ts;type=bowling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">Overs (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=overs;spanmin1 =22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type=b owling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">Mdns (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=maidens;spanmi n1=22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type =bowling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">Runs (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=conceded;spanm in1=22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;typ e=bowling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">Wkts (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=wickets;spanmi n1=22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type =bowling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">BBI (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=bbi;spanmin1=2 2+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bow ling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">Avehttp://i.imgci.com/espncricinfo/blackArrowUp.gif (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=bowling_averag e;orderbyad=reverse;spanmin1=22+Jan+2010;spanval1= span;template=results;type=bowling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">Econ (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=economy_rate;s panmin1=22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=results ;type=bowling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">SR (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=bowling_strike _rate;spanmin1=22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template= results;type=bowling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">4 (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=four_plus_wick ets;spanmin1=22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=re sults;type=bowling)</th> <th nowrap="nowrap">5 (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;continent=2;filter=advanced;gro upby=team;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=25; opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition= 6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=five_wickets;s panmin1=22+Jan+2010;spanval1=span;template=results ;type=bowling)</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr class="data1"> <td class="left" nowrap="nowrap">Sri Lanka (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/team/8.html)</td> <td>19</td> <td>9</td> <td>42</td> <td>343.0</td> <td>21</td> <td>1529</td> <td>64</td> <td>5/28</td> <td>23.89</td> <td>4.45</td> <td>32.1</td> <td>0</td> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr class="data1"> <td class="left" nowrap="nowrap">India (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/team/6.html)</td> <td>29</td> <td>18</td> <td>110</td> <td>772.0</td> <td>43</td> <td>4031</td> <td>132</td> <td>4/6</td> <td>30.53</td> <td>5.22</td> <td>35.0</td> <td>4</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr class="data1"> <td class="left" nowrap="nowrap">England (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/team/1.html)</td> <td>14</td> <td>3</td> <td>20</td> <td>145.4</td> <td>4</td> <td>713</td> <td>22</td> <td>4/28</td> <td>32.40</td> <td>4.89</td> <td>39.7</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr class="data1"> <td class="left" nowrap="nowrap">New Zealand (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/team/5.html)</td> <td>22</td> <td>13</td> <td>81</td> <td>544.0</td> <td>19</td> <td>2671</td> <td>79</td> <td>4/41</td> <td>33.81</td> <td>4.90</td> <td>41.3</td> <td>3</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr class="data1"> <td class="left" nowrap="nowrap">Bangladesh (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/team/25.html)</td> <td>19</td> <td>10</td> <td>62</td> <td>454.2</td> <td>13</td> <td>2363</td> <td>66</td> <td>4/25</td> <td>35.80</td> <td>5.20</td> <td>41.3</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr class="data1"> <td class="left" nowrap="nowrap">South Africa (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/team/3.html)</td> <td>21</td> <td>8</td> <td>47</td> <td>388.0</td> <td>9</td> <td>2188</td> <td>57</td> <td>4/27</td> <td>38.38</td> <td>5.63</td> <td>40.8</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr class="data1"> <td class="left" nowrap="nowrap">Zimbabwe (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/team/9.html)</td> <td>14</td> <td>4</td> <td>26</td> <td>181.4</td> <td>7</td> <td>811</td> <td>21</td> <td>4/38</td> <td>38.61</td> <td>4.46</td> <td>51.9</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr class="data1"> <td class="left" nowrap="nowrap">Pakistan (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/team/7.html)</td> <td>23</td> <td>8</td> <td>49</td> <td>389.2</td> <td>10</td> <td>2023</td> <td>46</td> <td>3/39</td> <td>43.97</td> <td>5.19</td> <td>50.7</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr class="data1"> <td class="left" nowrap="nowrap">Australia (http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/team/2.html)</td> <td>11</td> <td>1</td> <td>6</td> <td>48.5</td> <td>1</td> <td>283</td> <td>5</td> <td>3/55</td> <td>56.60</td> <td>5.79</td> <td>58.6</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>
No stat for WI as they have not played an ODI on subcontinent in the period. Stat for Australia may be misleading as they played only one ODI in the period, that they lost to India.

Looking at average, Sri Lankan bowling department is clearly head and shoulder above others here, with good strike rate and econ rate both. Surprised to see NZ bowlers have done better than ours here! I guess it's their batting department that lets them down. Another big surprise is that Pakistani bowlers seem to have done very poorly in related matches! Other surprise is that, though Zimbweans have poor strike rate, they seem to have a very good econ rate here (thanks to our slow pokes).

magic boy
January 22, 2011, 01:54 AM
^that's because Pakistan was deprived of playing more cricket in sub continent over security and political crisis. otherwise they could do better imo. a clear threatening bowing department they process you know.

al Furqaan
January 22, 2011, 02:55 AM
OK, got some new data...to please everyone here are the criteria.

Only 2 stats, Strike Rate ranks & Economy ranks.

Also, only matches between top 9 sides were taken into account and only games in the Subcontinent (BAN, IND, PAK, SL) were counted. Only bowlers who bowled a minimum of 30 overs were included.

Again the stats aren't perfect, for example India's most economical bowler according to the above criteria is actually Pragyan Ojha. However he does not factor in because he was not selected in India's WC squad. As a result India's figures suffer.

In some cases, some teams did not have 5 bowlers who took wickets or bowled 30 overs. In this case, I just filled in the next ranked number for all the remaining spots. For example if the last qualifying player was ranked 99, then I filled in 100 for all missing slots.

Bangladesh also suffers because Mashrafe is not in our squad. Hence his stats were ignored. Should he, miraculously, make our squad, our ranks would be much better than they are now as he is one of our best bowlers.

Strike Rate Ranks


1) Sri Lanka (20)
2) Pakistan (26)
3) India (31)
4) Australia (34)
5) Bangladesh (51)
6) New Zealand (56)
7) England (58)
8) South Africa (74)
9) West Indies (no data)


Economy Ranks

1) New Zealand (13)
2) Sri Lanka (24)
3) Pakistan (28)
4) India (33)
5) Bangladesh (40)
5) Australia (40)
7) England (57)
8) South Africa (81)
9) West Indies (no data)

Overall Bowling Rank

Equally weights given to both.

1) Sri Lanka (22)
2) Pakistan (27)
3) India (32)
4) New Zealand (35)
5) Australia (38)
6) Bangladesh (46)
7) England (58)
8) South Africa (78)
9) West Indies (no data)

So against the top sides, only in the subcontinent, and based on the World Cup squads picked, Sri Lanka are the top bowling unit, based on the stats of the last 4 years. India are surprisingly good, having left expensive bowlers like Sreesanth and Ishant out on the sidelines. Bangladesh would be slightly better if Mortaza was fit. South Africa have done quite poorly, because Dale Steyn is not as good a one day bowler as he is in Tests, and because he's only played a few matches in the subcontinent.

Out of qualifying bowlers, the top 4 economical bowlers in the world play for New Zealand. Very handy given the weak group they will be in for the WC.

Eshen
January 22, 2011, 02:59 AM
^^ Asaad, your ranking makes sense. But what is the time period you are considering here?

al Furqaan
January 22, 2011, 03:04 AM
will be interesting to compare how the actual performance in the world cup after the group stages will be.

al Furqaan
January 22, 2011, 03:04 AM
^^ Asaad, your ranking makes sense. But what is the time period you are considering here?

from the day after the final of the last world cup. i.e this from April 29, 2007 to the present.

Eshen
January 22, 2011, 03:06 AM
IMO, considering last two years will be more sensible. If you do that, my feeling is that Pakistan's ranking will go down and India will go up (ours will prolly also go up a little).

kalpurush
January 22, 2011, 03:14 AM
IMO, considering last two years will be more sensible. If you do that, my feeling is that Pakistan's ranking will go down and India will go up (ours will prolly also go up a little).
Eshen - upnakey onek din por dekhlam! How you been?


Asad - Fantastic analysis and a worthy thread :)

Eshen
January 22, 2011, 04:18 AM
Eshen - upnakey onek din por dekhlam! How you been?

I am doing great! Thanks for asking.

Yeah, I like to go into the invisible mode from time to time :)