PDA

View Full Version : The Statistical Gap.... 185 against 234. The true gap is possibly 60 runs.


Imtiaz
July 22, 2004, 06:05 AM
We all refer from time to time the gap between us and the "big boys". I have tried to calculate this "gap" statistically.

Please note that this is not a serious exercise. So, it is not a scientific prediction or anything like that. This is only for idle amusement. Sadly, it is not very funny.

I have taken the ODI batting averages of my favoured XI. As batting average is for completed innings', I have multiplied the total of the averages by 10/11 to arrive at the "expected mean score". Here goes:

Bashar 18.01
Faisal 17.00
Ashraful 15.61
Kapali 21.43
Rana 34.00 [ 3 n.o. out of 8 inn.]
Mashud 17.50
Mushfique 16.05
Mahmud 13.48
Rafique 13.85
Tapash 9.47
Razzak 27.00 [ 2 n.o. out of 3 inn. ]

Total 203.40 x 10 / 11 = 185

This is my mean expected score. Have you noticed how closely bunched the averages are ? It does not matter almost which position they bat at.

Now for the bowling: I have taken the economy rate as the basis since you cannot forecast the number of wickets each person would take.

Tapash 5.48
Mushfiq 4.28
Mahmud 4.95
Razzak 3.20
Rafique 4.60
Rana 4.04

Average 4.425

Total for 50 overs = 4.425 x 50 = 221.

This , I admit is very optimistic. It is because, Razzak's and Rana's economy rate are better than they would be as they have played very few matches. In Razzak's case Hong Kong is 1/3 of his career. Rana played in Zimbabwe. If Razzak's rate is adjusted upward by 1.00 and Rana's by 0.50, the expected opposition total comes to 234.

As I have accorded equal probability to each bowler, it assumes that they will bowl 8.33 overs each. In reality, Tapash, Rafique and Razzak are almost certain to bowl 10 overs each if Bangladesh bowl first.

Remember, the batting averages and the economy rates are based on all the countries these batsmen and bowlers have played against - not against Sri Lanka only. The batting averages against the "big boys" are bound to be lower hence the expected score will also be lower than 185. The opposite for the bowling. Therefore, that is expected to be higher.

I believe the true gap is about 60 runs

If I have time I will calculate Sri Lanka's expected mean score separately from their own batting averages.

[Edited on 23-7-2004 by Imtiaz]

AsifTheManRahman
July 22, 2004, 08:01 AM
Great analysis. A bit more thinking and improvement will make it even better.

Tintin
July 22, 2004, 08:28 AM
Very interesting analysis from Imtiaz. As he has mentioned, the batting averages are inflated by the presence of Rana and Razzaq who have played very few matches. So I just tried to improve it by taking the actual average of the team. Similarly for bowling, Razzak has an unfairly low runrate.

The five bowlers who bowled on Wednesday have together bowled 1110 overs and 3 balls, conceded 5289 runs at an average of 41.64 and a run/over of 4.76 [with Mushfiq included it will be 41.88 and 4.70]. That means that the average total made against Bangladesh is 238 + b/lbs.

The 11 players who played on Wednesday have together scored 5231 runs and were dismissed 308 times. From this the batting average of the whole team is 16.98 It is a fair assumption that we lose all the wickets.

I don't know how to interpret these numbers. Does this mean that the average score is 170 (+ extras) or should we apply a multiplication factor here too ? So I pass it back to you :)

Anyway, this is quite close to the estimate of 60 runs.



[Edited on 22-7-2004 by Tintin]

chinaman
July 22, 2004, 09:12 AM
Very interesting Projection. I don't know if any recognized entity uses such calculations. But it really looks great.

For comparisn and better analysis may I suggest the followings:

[list=1]
Take regular 14 players and calculate their collective batting average. Then we can divide it by 14 to get "Average Individual Run" which could likely be around 16 leading to an expected team total of 176.

Take 10 most regular bowlers and calculate their collective bowling average and get the "Average Individual Economy". This could likely be around 4.8 leading to an expected opponent score of 240.

Now, lets call the gap "Team Performace Gap". So, the TPG for Bangladesh is Minus 66 (-66)

We can calculate similar TPG for Test as well as for other nations periodically to see where we stand in a bigger picture.
[/list=1]


Note: The reason why I said to use 14 players and 10 most regular bowlers is that it represents a nation instead of a team only.

Since the test has no specific over limit, we can use average overs played by a nation. Better idea?

[Edited on 7-22-2004 by chinaman]

Tintin
July 22, 2004, 09:27 AM
Take regular 14 players and calculate their collective batting average....


It is getting late here but for a start, this is the stats of the current 11 :

Batting (Runs / Completed innings) :

HB 919 51
Ash 484 31
Rjn 422 17
Kp 793 37
Fa 34 2
Msh 1015 58
Rna 170 5
Rf 651 47
Suj 782 58
Rz 27 1
Az 24 1

5321 308 16.98

Bowling (Runs, Wkts, Overs) :

Azz 392 12 70.5
Raz 93 5 29
Suj 2282 54 457
Raj 2322 50 504.33
Ran 200 6 49.5

5289 127 1110.33 4.76


Mushfiq 784 18 183.17

Total : 6073 145 4.70 41.88

chinaman
July 22, 2004, 09:37 AM
Great Tintin.

So if we take 14 players, the contribution may actually go down from 16.98.

Similarly the Economy Rate may go up from 4.76 for the bowlers if we add few more regulars.

At any rate, our TPG seems to be around minus 60-70. God knows what would be the TPGs from other nations!

[Edited on 7-22-2004 by chinaman]

chinaman
July 22, 2004, 09:55 AM
Split this thread for relevency.

Piranha
July 22, 2004, 11:01 AM
Imtiaz, great post and excellent analysis.

Piranha
July 22, 2004, 11:02 AM
Imtiaz, great post and excellent analysis.

Imtiaz
July 22, 2004, 12:12 PM
I didn't realise there would be so many posts on this one. Usually, stats can be quite boring.

I made a glaring error in not including byes and leg byes. No wonder when I first tabulated the figures it seemed quite low. For Bangladesh, 185 appeared eminently sensible though ! Even a little on the high side. This shows there has been recent improvement. My hunch was it would be around 170 !

I think your contributions have enhanced the "value" of the calculations.

Chinaman, your TPG is a runner. May I suggest that rather than adding all the historical scores, we could have TPG10 [ i.e. the last 10 matches ], TPG20 etc. This will have more relevance as clearly recent results are more important.

Do you want to complicate matters further ? Take a weighted average of totals giving more weight to recent scores [ or, give more weight to stronger teams ]. I leave such "interesting !!" calculations to those of you prepared to burn the midnight oil !

By the way, byes and leg byes have to be factored in.

I still think, in the batting calculations, a multiplier of 10/11 is needed as all averages by definition are for completed innings'. Not out scores are included in the runs , so the Not Out batsman[men]'s contribution is built-in in every batsman's average.

I am prepared to be corrected.

chinaman
July 22, 2004, 12:38 PM
TPG10, TPG20 etc seem cool. As an example, we could say BD TPG10 before and after the Asia Cup was -60 and -50 respectively which shows some improvements.

About the 10/11 issue, I was trying to avoid it in favor of an "Average Individual Run" system because rarely a team continues to play beyond 5/6 matches without making some change in the line up. Besides, a larger pool is more reflective of the actual strength. By taking the average of the standard "Batting Average" we effectively avoid repeating the not out issue which is already in the batting average.

I wouldn't worry about the byes because more or less 10-15% runs come from it and since it is get added to both for and against scores, it cancels each other out.

Great going! Please keep it up.

Imtiaz
July 22, 2004, 07:01 PM
The following is a further refinement of the ideas set out above. The aim is to compute a score which expresses a team's performance capability - not just as a ranking but also as a relative measure. For example, ODI championship table says Sri Lanka has 106 points and Bangladesh has 1 point. It , of course, follows that Sri Lanka is better than Bangladesh but surely not 106 times better !! It quite accurately gives a ranking but does not aim to indicate performance capability.

Below, I have considered all 2004 ODI matches played by each country. The following are the team batting and bowlind summary data:

Pl. Inn. NO. Runs Ave. Exp.Score
[Pl.] [Balls] [Runs] [Ec/R] [Op.Sc.]

BDESH 9 92 13 1410 17.85 178.48
Opp. 9 2233 1545 4.15 207.57
TPG2004 -29.09

SL 13 106 22 2253 26.82 268.21
Opp. 13 3489 2370 4.08 203.78
TPG2004 64.43

IND 18 155 31 4143 33.41 334.11
Opp. 18 4890 4346 5.33 266.63
TPG2004 67.49

PAK 13 121 21 3107 31.07 310.70
Opp. 13 3501 3006 5.15 257.58
TPG2004 53.12

AUS 18 4280 36.27 362.71
Opp. 18 4770 3535 4.45 222.33
TPG2004 140.38

ENG 10 1754 26.58 265.76
Opp. 10 2265 1922 5.09 254.57
TPG2004 11.19

Note: Batting Expected Total = Team Total Runs / No.of completed innings

Opposition Expected Total = Economy Rate * 50 overs

Based on this measurement, Bangladesh is 29 runs worse off against our 2004 representative opposition [ which is ZIM3, WI3, HK1, PAK1,IND1 ]. Bangladesh has a very good economy rate. But, bear in mind, our 2004 opposition.

Sri Lanka's score is +64. India is slightly better than SL.

Australia by the way stands head and shoulders above everyone else. The ZIM tour may have inflated these figures.

Another way of looking at the same data is through the Stricking Rate. This has the attraction in that it is the opposite of the Economy Rate. The Bangladesh S/R for 2004 is: 59.44. Thus Expected Team Total = 59.44 /100 * 6 * 50 = 178.32
Opposition = 207.57
Net Striking Rate [NSR]= -29.25

Sri Lanka ETT 71.18*3= 213.54 Opposition = 203.78
Net Striking Rate [NSR]= 9.76

Just like the official points system, a ranking can be made here as well.

As they say, there are many ways to skin a cat !

[Edited on 23-7-2004 by Imtiaz]

Imtiaz
July 22, 2004, 07:51 PM
Aus 86.36
BDESH 59.44
ENG 77.64
HKG 41.83
IND 81.76
NZ 79.41
PAK 83.32
RSA 79.88
SL 71.18
UAE 41.63
WI 74.82
ZIM 64.45

Bangladesh's low scoring rate can be attributed to the fact that in the latter stages of an innings, unlike other countries, our focus is more towards finishing the 50 overs rather than increasing the scoring rate as we seldom have wickets in hand.

Arnab
July 22, 2004, 08:33 PM
Why don't you take the scoring rates of all teams for their past 25-30 matches. That's probably the average amount of ODIs teams play each year.

[Edited on 23-7-2004 by Arnab]

chinaman
July 22, 2004, 09:04 PM
To make it even more easier, we can use all the available standard data, the Team Average Score and Opponent Average Score.

At Present: (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=BAN&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=Jun&YearFinish=2004&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Innings=0&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=128&y=7)
Team Average Score: 166
Opponent Average Score: 211
Statistical Gap: -45

Before The Asia Cup: (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=BAN&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=Jul&YearFinish=2004&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=126&y=0)
Team Average Score: 165
Opponent Average Score: 212
Statistical Gap: -47

Before Whatmore (May 2003): (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=BAN&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=May&YearFinish=2003&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=105&y=10)
Team Average Score: 164
Opponent Average Score: 215
Statistical Gap: -51

So, we made improvement of "2" Statistical Gap during the Asia Cup and "6" Statistical Gap by Whatmore. This proves Whatmore actually made improvements!

chinaman
July 22, 2004, 09:48 PM
To make it even more easier, we can use all the available standard data, the Team Average Score and Opponent Average Score.

For Bangladesh:

At Present: (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=BAN&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=Jun&YearFinish=2004&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Innings=0&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=128&y=7)
Team Average Score: 166
Opponent Average Score: 211
Statistical Gap: -45

Before Asia Cup: (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=BAN&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=Jul&YearFinish=2004&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=126&y=0)
Team Average Score: 165
Opponent Average Score: 212
Statistical Gap: -47

Before Whatmore (May 2003): (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=BAN&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=May&YearFinish=2003&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=105&y=10)
Team Average Score: 164
Opponent Average Score: 215
Statistical Gap: -51

So, we made improvement of "2" Statistical Gap during the Asia Cup and "6" Statistical Gap by Whatmore. This proves Whatmore actually made improvements!
<hr>
For Pakistan:

At Present: (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=PAK&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=Jul&YearFinish=2004&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=86&y=10)
Team Average Score: 208
Opponent Average Score: 199
Statistical Gap: +9

Before Asia Cup: (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=PAK&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=Jun&YearFinish=2004&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=109&y=10)
Team Average Score: 208
Opponent Average Score: 200
Statistical Gap: +8
<hr>
For India:

At Present: (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=IND&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=Jul&YearFinish=2004&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=129&y=9)
Team Average Score: 208
Opponent Average Score: 209
Statistical Gap: -1

Before Asia Cup: (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=IND&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=Jun&YearFinish=2004&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=80&y=5)
Team Average Score: 208
Opponent Average Score: 209
Statistical Gap: -1
<hr>
For Sri Lanka:

At Present: (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=SRI&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=Jul&YearFinish=2004&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=120&y=10)
Team Average Score: 202
Opponent Average Score: 210
Statistical Gap: -8

Before Asia Cup: (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=SRI&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Jan&YearStart=1876&MonthFinish=Jun&YearFinish=2004&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=116&y=3)
Team Average Score: 202
Opponent Average Score: 210
Statistical Gap: -8
<hr>


So, during the Asia Cup, the Statistical Gap for India and Sri Lanka remains unchanged, Pakistan went up 1 and Bangladesh went up 2.

Please note: Before Asia Cup means upto May 31, 2004.

[Edited on 7-23-2004 by chinaman]

chinaman
July 22, 2004, 11:51 PM
Before Whatmore:

Batting Average: (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=testteam;filter=adv anced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;cont inent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0 ;startdefault=2000-11-10;start=2000-11-10;decade=0;enddefault=2004-06-07;end=2003-05-31;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule ddays=0;scheduledovers=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=s ummary;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh= ;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh=;b atevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhigh=; ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;oversb owledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1;.c gifields=viewtype) 18.5
Bowling Average: (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=testteam;filter=adv anced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;cont inent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0 ;startdefault=2000-11-10;start=2000-11-10;decade=0;enddefault=2004-06-07;end=2003-05-31;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule ddays=0;scheduledovers=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=s ummary;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh= ;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh=;b atevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhigh=; ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;oversb owledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1;.c gifields=viewtype) 58.2

At Present:

Batting Average: (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=testteam;filter=adv anced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;cont inent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0 ;startdefault=2000-11-10;start=2000-11-10;decade=0;enddefault=2004-06-07;end=2003-05-31;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule ddays=0;scheduledovers=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=s ummary;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh= ;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh=;b atevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhigh=; ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;oversb owledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1;.c gifields=viewtype) 20.00
Bowling Average: (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=testteam;filter=adv anced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;cont inent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0 ;startdefault=2000-11-10;start=2000-11-10;decade=0;enddefault=2004-06-07;end=2003-05-31;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule ddays=0;scheduledovers=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=s ummary;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh= ;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh=;b atevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhigh=; ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;oversb owledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1;.c gifields=viewtype) 53.3

So, our Batting Average is up 1.5 and Bowling Average is down 4.9 since May 31, 2003. This proves Whatmore actually made improvements in test area too!

Batting Average = batting average of runs per wicket.
Bowling Average = bowling average of runs conceded per wicket taken.

Tintin
July 23, 2004, 12:33 AM
CM,

The stats4.cricket.com has a problem that they are not taking the number of overs faced while calculating the team and opponent score.

For eg, in the three matches against England, BD batted first every time. If we check the stats for that our score is given as 153 and opposition's as 156, even though our RR is much inferior : Link (http://stats.cricket4.com/team_analysis.asp?TeamID=BAN&Opponent=0&Tour=0&MonthStart=Nov&YearStart=2003&MonthFinish=Jan&YearFinish=2004&ql=0&MatchType=ODI&Venue=0&ShowTeam=1&ShowRecords=1&BatOrder=&BowlOrder=&FromForm=1&x=53&y=12)

We may always have to go the way Imtiaz has done five posts ago.


[Edited on 23-7-2004 by Tintin]

Tintin
July 23, 2004, 01:08 AM
I have a suggestion about the Imtiaz method also that we should not assume that the teams lose all the wickets..

IND 18 155 31 4143 33.41 334.11
Opp. 18 4890 4346 5.33 266.63
TPG2004 67.49




India lost 124 wickets in the 18 matches or 124/18 wkts per match. So India's average score should be 4143 * (124/18) = 285.41. So the TPG will be +18.78. India won 10 and lost 8 this year, so this is reasonable. For Australia, the projected score will come down to 280.5 and the margin 58 runs.

But for Bangladesh, this method gives only 160.63. Is this because of the two 25 over matches that we played ?

This thread is making me acutely aware of my lack of knowledge of mathematics :(



[Edited on 23-7-2004 by Tintin]

Imtiaz
July 23, 2004, 03:49 AM
It's like looking at a cube from different sides.

Tintin
July 23, 2004, 03:52 AM
Thanks Imtiaz, but I keep getting stuck.


But for Bangladesh, this method gives only 160.63. Is this because of the two 25 over matches that we played ?


What is the issue here ?

Imtiaz
July 23, 2004, 04:20 AM
I am currently following a collapse on the net. Has anyone thought of Bashar playing at No.5 to protect him from the moving ball. Better, why not everyone play at No.5 as all the averages appear to be the same.

Arnab
July 23, 2004, 11:46 AM
Heh, the statistical gap with Srilanka seems to be TEN WICKETS. :)

Imtiaz
July 23, 2004, 12:38 PM
If the laws of cricket allowed, I am sure Sri Lanka's margin of victory would have even bigger ! It was an annihilation. We just have to chin it out.

Arnab
July 23, 2004, 12:41 PM
I have a question. Why isn't the statistical gap normalized for both

a.# of runs in 1 over. (BD and opponents)
b. # of runs for 1 wicket. (ditto)

It seems to me that it would give you a better picture of the relative strengths of the teams.

chinaman
July 23, 2004, 01:16 PM
At Present: (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=oditeam;filter=adva nced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;conti nent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0; startdefault=1986-03-31;start=1986-03-31;decade=0;enddefault=2004-07-23;end=2004-07-23;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule dovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=c umulative;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshi gh=;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh =;batevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhig h=;ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;ove rsbowledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1 ;.cgifields=viewtype)

Run/Over Scored: 3.78
Run/Over Concede: 5.18


Before Whatmore (05/2003): (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=oditeam;filter=adva nced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;conti nent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0; startdefault=1986-03-31;start=1986-03-31;decade=0;enddefault=2004-07-23;end=2004-05-31;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule dovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=c umulative;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshi gh=;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh =;batevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhig h=;ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;ove rsbowledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1 ;.cgifields=viewtype)

Run/Over Scored: 3.77
Run/Over Concede: 5.22

Arnab
July 23, 2004, 01:25 PM
That's one of the things. So, no improvement then.

How about runs/wicket?

[Edited on 23-7-2004 by Arnab]

chinaman
July 23, 2004, 01:34 PM
At Present: (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=oditeam;filter=adva nced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;conti nent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0; startdefault=1986-03-31;start=1986-03-31;decade=0;enddefault=2004-07-23;end=2004-07-23;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule dovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=c umulative;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshi gh=;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh =;batevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhig h=;ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;ove rsbowledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1 ;.cgifields=viewtype)

Run/Wicket Scored: 19.00
Run/Wicket Conceded: 43.9

Before Whatmore (05/2003): (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=oditeam;filter=adva nced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;conti nent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0; startdefault=1986-03-31;start=1986-03-31;decade=0;enddefault=2004-07-23;end=2004-05-31;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule dovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=c umulative;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshi gh=;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh =;batevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhig h=;ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;ove rsbowledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1 ;.cgifields=viewtype)

Run/Wicket Scored: 18.9
Run/Wicket Conceded: 44.1

Arnab
July 23, 2004, 01:38 PM
So let me see if there's aconclusion to be made here.

We haven't improved AT ALL, relative to our opponents improvements, in the ODIs, after Whatmore took reign.

chinaman
July 23, 2004, 02:14 PM
Wait a min. I made some terrible mistake. Before Whatmore should be 05/31/2003 but I put 05/31/2004.

Sorry about that. Corrected stats to follow.

chinaman
July 23, 2004, 02:31 PM
ODI Stats

At Present: (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=oditeam;filter=adva nced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;conti nent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0; startdefault=1986-03-31;start=1986-03-31;decade=0;enddefault=2004-07-23;end=2004-07-23;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule dovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=c umulative;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshi gh=;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh =;batevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhig h=;ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;ove rsbowledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1 ;.cgifields=viewtype)

Run/Over Scored: 3.78
Run/Over Concede: 5.18

Run/Wicket Scored: 19.00
Run/Wicket Conceded: 43.9

Before Whatmore (05/2003): (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=oditeam;filter=adva nced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;conti nent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0; startdefault=1986-03-31;start=1986-03-31;decade=0;enddefault=2004-07-23;end=2003-05-31;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule dovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=c umulative;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshi gh=;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh =;batevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhig h=;ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;ove rsbowledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1 ;.cgifields=viewtype)

Run/Over Scored: 3.75
Run/Over Concede: 5.27

Run/Wicket Scored: 18.9
Run/Wicket Conceded: 46.1

Test Stats

At Present: (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=testteam;filter=adv anced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;cont inent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0 ;startdefault=2000-11-10;start=2000-11-10;decade=0;enddefault=2004-06-07;end=;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;sch eduleddays=0;scheduledovers=0;innings=0;followon=0 ;result=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewt ype=cumulative;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wick etshigh=;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;over shigh=;batevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;tak enhigh=;ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled =;oversbowledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;sub mit=1;.cgifields=viewtype)

Run/Over Scored: 2.78
Run/Over Concede: 3.48

Run/Wicket Scored: 20.00
Run/Wicket Conceded: 53.3

Before Whatmore (05/2003): (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=testteam;filter=adv anced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;cont inent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0 ;startdefault=2000-11-10;start=2000-11-10;decade=0;enddefault=2004-06-07;end=2003-05-31;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule ddays=0;scheduledovers=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=c umulative;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshi gh=;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh =;batevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhig h=;ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;ove rsbowledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1 ;.cgifields=viewtype)

Run/Over Scored: 2.77
Run/Over Concede: 3.67

Run/Wicket Scored: 18.5
Run/Wicket Conceded: 58.2



Comment:

Well, though small, statistical improvements are apperant across the board. Due to the smaller nature of the parameters, the improvements look even smaller.

Perhaps the major improvements that were being made so far are at the level of "reserve". Because of this higher reserve, the players are more capable of stretching their limits more often than they were able to do previously and we all witnessed how this increased reserve paid off during the previous two tours and even in the match against the Lankans.

[Edited on 7-23-2004 by chinaman : Comment added.]

Ahmed_B
July 23, 2004, 02:47 PM
Pre & Post-whatmore performance isn't much different!

bad news!

Ahmed_B
July 23, 2004, 02:54 PM
and nice analysis by everyone here... thanks !

chinaman
July 23, 2004, 03:08 PM
Well, though small, statistical improvements are apperant across the board. Due to the smaller nature of the parameters, the improvements look even smaller.

Perhaps the major improvements that were being made so far are at the level of "reserve". Because of this higher reserve, the players are more capable of stretching their limits more often than they were able to do previously and we all witnessed how this increased reserve paid off during the previous two tours and even in the match against the Lankans.

Arnab
July 23, 2004, 04:36 PM
Well, though small, statistical improvements are apperant across the board. Due to the smaller nature of the parameters, the improvements look even smaller.

What are you, Whatmore's agent?

Let me see, we score 0.03 runs more per over in ODIs. So in a 50 over match, we now score 50*0.03 = 1.5 runs more than before.

Unnoti: 1.5 runs

we concede 0.09 runs less per over. That is for a 50 over match we noe concede 50*0.09 = 4.5 runs less.

Unnoti: 4.5 runs

Total ODI unnoti in one year under Whatmore: 6 runs.

6 run-unnoti is never going to win us matches.

At this rate we need at least 10 more years to catch up with the big teams.

[Edited on 23-7-2004 by Arnab]

Zunaid
July 23, 2004, 05:40 PM
Some random thoughts and observations on this issue:

There has not been much noticable improvement in overall team averages pre/post Whatmore.

However, there are fewer variations. At least the team is more consistent.

Many players from our first ODI days (who have all retired) have higher averages than the current crop (with a few exceptions). A lot of our partneship and batting records are from the 1997-1999 era.

Our ODI batting appears to have stagnated - with a few exceptions no "big name" players such as Bulbul.

Whatmore has had to focus more on Test performance than ODI performance.

We've had to live with with second string / part time bowlers for many ODIs during the whatmore era - Chacha opening?

Not making excuses for Whatmore but while I see no heartening improvement in ODIs but perhaps not all the pieces are in yet.

Heresy thought: Does Bashar (and some others) belong in the ODI team? He is becoming more of a bane than a boon?

ducking from the brick-bats....

as myself...

chinaman
July 23, 2004, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
At this rate we need at least 10 more years to catch up with the big teams.Within the same period, while were able to make positive changes as high as 1.5, 2.2 and 4.9 in various parameters, India, Pakistan, West Indies and Sri Lanka could manage a maximum change of only 0.4. Now, who's gonna do the math?

India
Test:
32.3 35.2 2.75 2.70
32.0 35.0 2.73 2.68

ODI:
30.8 30.2 4.72 4.70
30.6 30.0 4.69 4.67

Pak
Test:
32.2 31.4 2.80 2.82
32.1 31.4 2.80 2.81

ODI:
29.8 27.6 4.63 4.55
29.5 27.4 4.60 4.52

SL
Test:
31.0 33.8 2.94 2.89
31.6 34.2 2.92 2.87

ODI:
28.1 30.9 4.62 4.68
28.0 31.2 4.61 4.71

Imtiaz
July 24, 2004, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by chinaman
At Present: (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=oditeam;filter=adva nced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;conti nent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0; startdefault=1986-03-31;start=1986-03-31;decade=0;enddefault=2004-07-23;end=2004-07-23;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule dovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=c umulative;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshi gh=;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh =;batevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhig h=;ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;ove rsbowledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1 ;.cgifields=viewtype)

Run/Over Scored: 3.78
Run/Over Concede: 5.18


Before Whatmore (05/2003): (http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=team;team=BDESH;class=oditeam;filter=adva nced;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;conti nent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0; startdefault=1986-03-31;start=1986-03-31;decade=0;enddefault=2004-07-23;end=2004-05-31;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;schedule dovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;followon=0;resu lt=0;seriesresult=0;captainid=0;recent=;viewtype=c umulative;runslow=;runshigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshi gh=;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpo=0;overslow=;overshigh =;batevent=0;conclow=;conchigh=;takenlow=;takenhig h=;ballsbowledlow=;ballsbowledhigh=;bpobowled=;ove rsbowledlow=;oversbowledhigh=;bowlevent=0;submit=1 ;.cgifields=viewtype)

Run/Over Scored: 3.77
Run/Over Concede: 5.22
_________________________________

When you quote "At present" figures, are you including the pre-Whatmore era. Otherwise, as the weight of matches played before Whatmore is still, say, 80% of all matches played by Bangladesh, the figures will not change by much. The post-Whatmore period is sufficiently representative to be calculated separately. If you have done that then I would agree with Arnab that the "improvements" have been relatively minor.

Imtiaz
July 24, 2004, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Zunaid
Some random thoughts and observations on this issue:


Heresy thought: Does Bashar (and some others) belong in the ODI team? He is becoming more of a bane than a boon?

ducking from the brick-bats....

as myself...

I don't think there is anything heretical about your comments. Any comment, however far-fetched , but civil can be discussed.

The Bashar situation is intriguing. You would have thought that the way he plays a test innings was tailor-made for ODI's - but his average is virtually half [ over 50 matches for ODI's , about 30 in tests ].

Since, he plays in the same position in both forms of the game and probably goes in on average more or less at the same time, why this difference ?

Is it exposing his lack of technique against the moving ball as the white ball, by all accounts, supposedly moves more than the red one ? Most batsmen's ODI average is lower than the test average because of the need for a higher run rate, but it is seldom so glaring !

Are there other batsmen who have played sufficient number of matches in both the disciplines whose averages are so markedly different ?

Imtiaz
July 24, 2004, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by Tintin
I have a suggestion about the Imtiaz method also that we should not assume that the teams lose all the wickets..

[quote] IND 18 155 31 4143 33.41 334.11
Opp. 18 4890 4346 5.33 266.63
TPG2004 67.49




India lost 124 wickets in the 18 matches or 124/18 wkts per match. So India's average score should be 4143 * (124/18) = 285.41. So the TPG will be +18.78. India won 10 and lost 8 this year, so this is reasonable. For Australia, the projected score will come down to 280.5 and the margin 58 runs.

But for Bangladesh, this method gives only 160.63. Is this because of the two 25 over matches that we played ?

This thread is making me acutely aware of my lack of knowledge of mathematics :(
__________________________________________________ ________________

As I see it, in your analysis, you are extrapolating the final score on the basis of 10 wickets for each innings. This method is perfectly valid. India's "average total" is thus 285. As overs are not used in this calculation, it has no direct bearing on the result.

Note that I used the word "direct". It does have an indirect effect. That effect comes in because in a 25 over match, two different things will happen:

1. the run-rate will be higher

2. the rate of wickets falling will be higher too.

However, the overall distortion is relatively small. The average rate of wickets lost is higher but it is to an extent covered by the higher run rate. In figures:

Bangladesh "normally" scores 170 for 10 averaging at 17.00.

Extrapolating to 25 overs: 85 / 5. But, in the two ODI's it was 125 /10 averaging at 12.50 . Of course, this would reduce the average

The 20-20 experiment in England shows that the final score in a 20 overs match is around the 170 - 220 mark. In 50 overs it is 200 - 300. Why this difference ? It is,of course, because of the run rate. But, why so ? As the "resources" i.e. the number of wickets available are the same, therefore, they are more intensively used.

In fact, this is the rationale behind the Duckworth-Lewis table. The target is increased as more wickets are lost i.e. it recognises you have less resources to play with. Sorry, I am digressing.

chinaman
July 24, 2004, 10:20 AM
When you quote "At present" figures, are you including the pre-Whatmore era. Otherwise, as the weight of matches played before Whatmore is still, say, 80% of all matches played by Bangladesh, the figures will not change by much. The post-Whatmore period is sufficiently representative to be calculated separately. If you have done that then I would agree with Arnab that the "improvements" have been relatively minor.Fine-tuned Stats will follow..

Arnab
July 24, 2004, 10:27 AM
Hmm...come on Chinaman. I thought those were only post-whatmore era stats.

We definitely made some tangible improvements in tests. I have yet to make graphs for the ODIs. May be I will do them today. But for good measures:

http://www.banglacricket.com/tours/Misc/obsf.gif

http://www.banglacricket.com/tours/Misc/rpw.gif

Tintin
July 24, 2004, 10:31 AM
Edit : Didn't see Chinaman's post

[Edited on 24-7-2004 by Tintin]

chinaman
July 24, 2004, 10:49 AM
Arnab, wait for me.

Will post more stats in half an hour or so. You could do the visualisation then.

Arnab
July 24, 2004, 11:22 AM
Alright, we can do the visualizations later.

Let's have a look at the key ODI stats, pre- and post-Whatmore:

Matches played:

Pre: 71
Post: 21


1. Batting Average (aka runs per wicket):

Pre: 18.9
Post: 19.1

2. Bowling Average (aka runs given per opposition wicket):

Pre: 46.1
Post: 37.2

3. Scoring Rate (aka runs per over):

pre: 3.75
post: 3.97

Improvement (per over): 0.22 runs
Improvement (50 overs): 11.00 runs

On average, we score 11 runs more.

4. Economy Rate (aka runs conceded to opposition per over):

pre: 5.27
post: 4.87

Improvement (per over): 0.40
Improvement (50 overs): 20.00 runs

On average, we concede 20 runs less.

******

Holding other variables constant, our overall improvement in the ODIs during Whatmore-era is then 11+20 = 31 runs.

******

But still there remains a big difference between our scoring rate and our oppositions scoring rate.

5. Difference between BD's and Oppostion's scoring rate:

Pre: 5.27 - 3.75 = 1.52 runs per over
Post: 4.87 - 3.87 = 1.00 runs per over

So there still remains a difference of 1 runs per over between us and our oppositions. That magnifies into a 50 run difference between us and our opponents in a 50-over match.

******

So, here's the back-of-the-envelope answer to your query, Imtiaz:

The statistical gap is currently about 50 runs.

Before Whatmore took rein, the gap was about 80 runs. Whatmore has reduced that gap by 30 runs so far.

If we keep going like this, it will take us around 30 more ODIs to bring the gap down to 10-odd runs. Statistically, we can expect to win at least 4-5 matches out of those 30, as we make our progress.

So the message is : Don't lose your heart for the losses in the Asia cup. If we keep ourselves on track, we are bound to win some on the way.

[Edited on 24-7-2004 by Arnab]

chinaman
July 24, 2004, 11:37 AM
http://banglacricket.com/files/pics/posted/perft.gif

chinaman
July 24, 2004, 11:47 AM
Arnab

Would highly appreciate if you do an analysis for the front page. Thanks a lot.

Arnab
July 24, 2004, 11:57 AM
Are we posting statistical [] on the main page these days? :)

Actually I have thought about posting a masssive and thorough article about the various statistical factors of our performance so far. Haven't got the time to put everything down in a coherent manner.

In the meantime, I am tryign to come up with some new stats on the topic of this thread.

[Edited on 7-24-2004 by chinaman]

Arnab
July 24, 2004, 01:43 PM
Since Whatmore has been with us for 21 ODI matches, let's take the last 21 matches for all our opponents and see where they are with respect to us.

1. Scoring rate:

http://www.banglacricket.com/tours/TEST/rpo.jpg

So it seems that we are behind every other nation in scoring rate. But by how much? Who can we catch up with the fastest?

http://www.banglacricket.com/tours/TEST/rpodiff.jpg

Looks like we need to catch up to ZIM first, then SRI, then SAF and ENG, then WI, etc.

2. Economy Rate:

http://www.banglacricket.com/tours/TEST/conc.jpg

In this stat, we are actually faring better than several nations. But against whom are we faring worse? And by how much?

http://www.banglacricket.com/tours/TEST/concdiff.jpg

So we concede less than IND, PAK, NZ, WI and ZIM. but more than SRI, ENG, AUS SAF.

Do the math. Who do we have a realistic chance of beating in the recent future?

Zimbabwe? Yes.
West Indies? May be.
Sri Lanka? No. They concede way less than us.

Let's not even talk about beating the rest for the time being. Even if it happens, it's going to be a lucky anomaly.

chinaman
July 24, 2004, 02:09 PM
So, statistically, for the last 21 limited over matches for each team, Sri Lanka has been the best bowling line ups followed by England, Australia, South Africa and Bangladesh?

Wow!

In other words, we have good chances of winning everytime our batsmen post competative totals.

Arnab
July 24, 2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by chinaman
In other words, we have good chances of winning everytime our batsmen post competative totals.

Which has never happened, except that one time against ZIM.

It all makes sense.

To put it bluntly, in the ODIs, we are the 5th best bowling side, but the worst batting side. Our bowling achievements have been great so far, but they have also been negated by our horrendous batting. Folafol: Roshogolla.

[Edited on 24-7-2004 by Arnab]

Imtiaz
July 24, 2004, 07:48 PM
The analysis is excellent. It certainly looks good and matches our gut instincts.

However, consider this scenario...

Bangladesh scores 177 in 50 overs and India goes into bat. As the Required Run Rate is not that high, India plays more cautiously than it normally would if they were chasing 257, say. The result, their [our opponent's] runs/over is lower than it could be otherwise and their runs/wicket is higher than might be the case normally.

You may have seen results like this:

Team "A" 202 in 50 overs

Team "B" 203/4 in 49.1 overs.

I have heard some people in these scenarios remark on how "close" the match was. Only, 5 balls !, they exclaim. Anyone, with some knowledge of the game knows it was not close at all.

It could be argued that this happens with all countries. True. But since Bangladesh has been on the losing end of a game 85 out of 92 times, a statistical bias exists. This bias , theoretically can be reduced by some adjustment using ICC rankings of the day, for example. But, for simplicity, a certain k factor can be introduced to take care of it.

Am I just being difficult ? Or, do I want to see more pretty pictures ?

Note: I can see why you took the sample size to be 21 matches as it corresponds with the Whatmore era. However, it might be better to take the last series [even a one-off match ] against each country for all countries. The only limitation I would place would be to disregard any series/match more than 3 years ago. This way the sample of matches selected would be broadly representative. Of course, if some kind of adjustment could be made regards strength of opposition, then any fixed period would be acceptable as each game would then be "normalized" in Arnab's words.

chinaman
July 24, 2004, 08:46 PM
Here's a topspin for you :)

Bangladesh batted cautiously against Hong Kong to get over with the Canada spell. Moreover, they play cautiously so often that it has become the norm for them. They say its a mental thing, I say, the more we keep the stats away from this mental thing, the better. The only example that comes to me right away that they seemed to play what could rather be called aggressively is the match against Pakistan last week.

Good statistician always look for ways to minimize any bias. Your suggestion to use the ranking for such adjustment is quite smart. However, our ranking and record is such that, a general statistical analysis is just about enough to get the picture right saving the tedious workload of error and bias corrections.

Walking the same avenue of thought, Arnab's "21 match" and yearly stats from my part are good enough to call for serious improvements in our batting while we wait to greet Masri and other young speedsters to boast our bowling capability.

Anyway, thank you Imtiaz for such a thoughtful thread. Any plan to write an article for the front page based on the stats? Arnab will write one, but it's always good to have second and third opinions. Tintin? No rush.

Imtiaz
July 25, 2004, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by chinaman
Here's a topspin for you :)

Anyway, thank you Imtiaz for such a thoughtful thread. Any plan to write an article for the front page based on the stats? Arnab will write one, but it's always good to have second and third opinions. Tintin? No rush.
__________________________________________________ ________________

I think what has come about is more than adequate. After all, any calculation will be prone to bias of some kind. In over hundred years of cricket, the average has been accepted as the yardstick. For good reason. It is easy to compute and easy to understand. For Bangladesh, the Whatmore era is a clearly defined period. So using that as a basis makes sense. Otherwise , I would work on calendar year basis. Any year would continue until June of the following year. So calculations will have a minimum spread of 12 months and a maximum spread of 18 months.

One gem has come off the calculations. Bangladesh's economy rate being somewhere in the middle amongst all countries over at least 21 matches [ a pretty large sample ], shows that it is clearly our batting which is holding back those elusive victories.

Scores above 220 will begin to produce the occasional result. Above 240 - 250 they should start coming in regularly.

I feel our spin attack as well as the fact that our medium pacers are relatively slow helps us in ODI's. Accurate slow or slower bowling is more difficult to get away. If you note really quick attacks unless they happen to be very good [ i.e. Australia ] go for too many runs. The reason Pakistan and India win matches is primarily with their batting and not their bowling.

Well done, all of you. I might take up your offer of writing a column. However, I am off on a trip for a few days - so it might be the latter part of the week.

Imtiaz
July 25, 2004, 08:22 AM
[quote]Originally posted by chinaman
Here's a topspin for you :)

Bangladesh batted cautiously against Hong Kong to get over with the Canada spell. Moreover, they play cautiously so often that it has become the norm for them. They say its a mental thing, I say, the more we keep the stats away from this mental thing, the better. The only example that comes to me right away that they seemed to play what could rather be called aggressively is the match against Pakistan last week.
__________________________________________________ ________________
Agreed. The most positive piece coming out of the SL game for me was that we scored 90 runs in the last 12 overs. I believe 99 over the last 14. This shows we have the capacity to "slog" or perhaps even "chase". Only, seldom do these opportunities arise for us.

The reason we got an opportunity yesterday, was despite the fact we were 31/4, we still had 6 wickets in hand at the end of the 38th over. The 5th wicket fell, I think, in the 42nd over. Rana was stumped trying to carve Murali. Nothing wrong with that.

Of course, it was the "if only" situation. If only, we were 160/4 at the end of over 40 rather than 119/4. For that the batsmen are, as always, totally culpable.

Psychologically chasing 250 and chasing 190, is not the same thing. Even experienced batsmen make mistakes.

Arnab
July 25, 2004, 12:56 PM
the Whatmore era is a clearly defined period. So using that as a basis makes sense. Otherwise , I would work on calendar year basis.

Well, either way. The Whatmore ODI era will be 1 year old on Aug 1, 2004, less than a week from now.

During the same period,

Australia has played 21 matches, same number as ours.
SAF: 16
SL: 15
IND: 25
PAK: 28

You catch the drift. On average, all the teams probably played around 21-22 ODIs in the last 12 months.