Ranking Bangladesh's Opponent in Terms of Partnership Strengths

[Zeeshan]

Motivation: My prime motivation was to find out the FOW of test-playing oppositions in ODI in the first 10 overs as BD seem to have a penchant for rattling the stumps early on. However, due to lack of filtration of Statsguru I had to settle with an examination of ranking the teams in order who can be cracked most easily most by Bangladesh bowling attack.

Data:

I gathered the following data of the averages-per-dismissals and they are tabulated in terms of descending strength of our opposition team.

General Venue

Source



Home Venue

Source



Observation:

Coincidentally, England the only team we have yet to beat, ranks #1 with a high average in general.
Powerhouses like South African and Australia do not fall behind.
Out of the G-8 teams, the only ones suscpetible to our siege of battering ram are Sri Lanka & New Zealand
basking at the bottom quadrant (group of last three).

At home venue, South Africa transposes England, while West Indies makes a big jump from #6 to #3.
Australia falls from the lofty #3 to #5.
India and Pakistan, do not fare any well at home matches and India remains behind Australia in the list and falls down one place.
Sri Lanka, New Zealand and Zimbabwe in the last quadrant remains unchanged at home matches.

This however does give a rough indication of the adaptability of South Africa and West Indies. The fact that the sub-continent teams don't drastically hog the top quadrant (group of first 3) shows that given their familiarity with home pitch conditions results in no better averages than other teams

Note at home turf, teams like Sri Lanka and New Zealand are vulnerable about half the times that of South Africa. The famous Sri Lankan 6/5 incident definitely plays a role in lowering the average.

Conclusion:

Thus it seems the teams who are most easily crackable by our bowling department in order of increasing difficulty are in general:

Zim < NZ < SL < WI < Ind < Pak < Aus < SA < Eng

and in home venue

Zim < NZ < SL < Ind < Aus < Pak < WI < Eng < SA

although the ratings will tell a "different" story:

Zim < WI< SL < Eng < Pak < NZ < India < Aus < SA.

In order to find a vague and rough idea of what the strengths of our opposition are, I propose to divide it in quadrants of 3-3-3.

Thus in the left most quadrant we take Zim < NZ < SL given the preponderance of common denominator. This leaves Windies hanging in left most quadrant so we "carry" it over. Thus from the sub-section of
WI (carry)
1. WI < Ind < Pak
2. Ind < Aus < Pak
3. Eng < Pak < NZ

It's probably safe to intuitively eradicate WI < Ind < Pak again from a visual preponderance of common denominator.

Then, we form the string of chain:

Zim < NZ < SL < WI < Ind < Pak

Onto our last quadrant and we carry the remainder of Eng < Aus. Thus we have:

Eng < Aus (carry)
1. Aus < SA < Eng
2. WI < Eng < SA
3. Ind < Aus < SA

I think it's pretty much safe to pull out intuitively the chain of Eng < Aus < SA from at a glance.So, we end with the final chain of :

Zim < NZ < SL < WI < Ind < Pak< Eng < Aus < SA

Of course, this is arrived at a very subjective modus operandi of sorting out one's opponents. But, hopefully from this pseudo mathematics, one can arrive at the approximation of the true strengths of our opponents.

Epilogue: Feel free to sure your opinions or disagreements if you find any and any flaws in this system.

[Nafi]

We havent really played many recent matches against England.

It best if you ignored games from 2000-2006 IMO, as the sides are so different.

[Tigers_eye]

Something does not add up.

Inn + NO should be = Partnership * 2
Example: from your first table: Zim Inn 304 + NO 24 = 328 which is equal to Partnership 164 * 2 = 328.

But with exception of England non of the countries match. This data (Ave) is questionable which is the basis of the whole analysis. The process looks okay though.

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Something does not add up.

Inn + NO should be = Partnership * 2
Example: from your first table: Zim Inn 304 + NO 24 = 328 which is equal to Partnership 164 * 2 = 328.

But with exception of England non of the countries match. This data (Ave) is questionable which is the basis of the whole analysis. The process looks okay though.

I don't think we are on the same page. That's not partnership but number of partners cumulatively.

For example for England, over the span of 7 years, there have been 1641 runs with 21 partners out of which 8 were Not Outs in 34 matches.

I don't think there should be any discrepancies in the averages given that fact I merely copy and pasted them from statsguru.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by ZeeshanM
I don't think we are on the same page. That's not partnership but number of partners cumulatively.

For example for England, over the span of 7 years, there have been 1641 runs with 21 partners out of which 8 were Not Outs in 34 matches.

I don't think there should be any discrepancies in the averages given that fact I merely copy and pasted them from statsguru.

hmmm!! Give me the criteria of your query from the Stat guru.

[Eshen]

Originally Posted by Nafi
We havent really played many recent matches against England.

It best if you ignored games from 2000-2006 IMO, as the sides are so different.

Ditto

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
hmmm!! Give me the criteria of your query from the Stat guru.

Under Partnership of ODI, choose all teams vs. Bangladesh as opposition. (Btw I left date as it is choosing an all inclusive summary). Then choose the option Group figures by "team" and Result Qualifications & Sort Results By "broken partnerships (outs)"... you should get same result as me.

Now I am not sure if there is any flaw in selecting the criteria.

[Ashfaq]

You need to get laid Zeeshan.

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by Siraji
You need to get laid Zeeshan.

Patent it....before people steals your diss.

[Ashfaq]

Originally Posted by ZeeshanM
Patent it....before people steals your diss.

No mate, not dishing you. I seriously mean it. You have too much free time in your hands.

May be a bit hypocritical coming from me but still...

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by Siraji
No mate, not dishing you.

But I was....

Anywas, will keep your unsolicited "advice" in mind.

[Nafi]

Originally Posted by ZeeshanM
But I was....

Anywas, will keep your unsolicited "advice" in mind.

Seriously can you do the same study, excepty this time only include games from 2007-2009

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by Nafi
Seriously can you do the same study, excepty this time only include games from 2007-2009

Bro I am waiting from the gurus and sages to see if my methodology is actually correct. Then may be, I can dilly dally sideways. Stay tuned though...and share it in stumbleupon & fb :-)

[al Furqaan]

not sure if i understood this correctly.

did england really crack a 200 run partnership somewhere against us in ODIs (perhaps at trent bridge)? but it wasn't in the first 10 overs though...as u can tell, i'm confused.

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
not sure if i understood this correctly.

did england really crack a 200 run partnership somewhere against us in ODIs (perhaps at trent bridge)? but it wasn't in the first 10 overs though...as u can tell, i'm confused.

Fourth wicket partnership(and no the tables have nothing to do with first ten overs as was the original intention or motivation).

http://www.cricinfo.com/natwestserie...ngs=1;view=fow

:-)

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by Nafi
Seriously can you do the same study, excepty this time only include games from 2007-2009

Your wish...

To recap here is the ranking of the opposition in general:

Zim < NZ < SL < WI < Ind < Pak< Eng < Aus < SA

Now if we include only the matches from 2007-to present in general venue, as you expected, England drops down drastically:

General venue 2007-present



And if we take home venue, note how drastically Sri Lanka falls below Zimbabwe (granted it was because of 6/5 and the preceding match where we had early breakthroughs):

Home venue (2007 to present)



Thing that does remain constant if we compare before and after the criterion of the dates is that:

Ind < Pak < Aus < SA

I am open to the idea on how the rest of the lower-end oppositions should be ranked.

[fuzzy]

they have 2 beat ENG soon... they seem the stronger side vs us.... we havn't won anything vs them..

[Eshen]

We have not won anything against Pakistan either since WC'99 - very puzzling

[Imteaz]

When we play against Test nations, our game plan and everything distorted. We always think that our players cannot play according to ability. But I don’t believe that. I think we don't have ability. According to statistics whatever happen, practically I think our opponent according to toughness is like below

Kenya<Zimbabwe.

Till now all the win against other test playing nations were fluke because we couldn't beat them for consecutive 2 matches (Please stop considering the win against current WI series, because it is controversial for their team standard).

Let us beat a single test nation for consecutive 2 matches.

[auntu]

Originally Posted by ZeeshanM
But I was....

Anywas, will keep your unsolicited "advice" in mind.

No. Please don't ruin someone's life...

[Nadim]

Originally Posted by fuzzy
they have 2 beat ENG soon... they seem the stronger side vs us.... we havn't won anything vs them..

well, insallah it's coming...ENG is touring us in February 2010...