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

[chinaman]

At Present:

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


Before Whatmore (05/2003):

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

[Arnab]

That's one of the things. So, no improvement then.

How about runs/wicket?

[Edited on 23-7-2004 by Arnab]

[chinaman]

At Present:

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

Before Whatmore (05/2003):

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

[Arnab]

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]

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]

ODI Stats

At Present:

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

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

Before Whatmore (05/2003):

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

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

Test Stats

At Present:

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

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

Before Whatmore (05/2003):

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]

Pre & Post-whatmore performance isn't much different!

bad news!

[Ahmed_B]

and nice analysis by everyone here... thanks !

[chinaman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by chinaman
At Present:

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


Before Whatmore (05/2003):

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]

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]

[quote]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..

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]

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]

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:

[Tintin]

Edit : Didn't see Chinaman's post

[Edited on 24-7-2004 by Tintin]

[chinaman]

Arnab, wait for me.

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

[Arnab]

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]

[chinaman]

Arnab

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

[Arnab]

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]

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:



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?



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

2. Economy Rate:



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



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]

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.