The Statistical Gap.... 185 against 234. The true gap is possibly 60 runs.

[Arnab]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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.