Twenty20

Singh the King???

2008-07-22T20:24:00Z

With the test series between India and Sri Lanka starting tomorrow, it is slated as a clash between the spin giants. If Sri Lanka will be betting on mastery of Murali and mystery of Mendis, India will surely rely on the accuracy of Anil Kumble and aura around Harbhajan Singh. While Kumble’s record is beyond the microscopes of any analysis, Harbhajan Singh is yet to become a reliable replacement of his senior in the team.

Bhajji entered the scene in 1998 but remained a shadow of Anil Kumble till Steve Waugh’s final frontier arrived in India in 2001. With 32 wickets in 3 tests, he turned into a turbanator. But since then, such magical performance has eluded him although it will be fair to say that such series come once in a life time.

With 275 wickets in 66 tests at an average of 31, his career could be said as nothing spectacular. Yeah, he has been second best after Anil Kumble for many a years now. Kumble had taken 300 wickets after 66 matches at 28 a piece which is slightly better than Bhajji’s record. Kumble’s initial matches also included those on crater-filled pitches at home, a privilege Bhajji certainly hasn’t enjoyed. But Kumble’s performance improved drastically especially in the current decade. Can Bhajji do it? Only time will tell.

Bhajji’s biggest problem has been performing abroad. Table below compares his performance away and at home

	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	Ave	Econ	SR	5’s	10’s	Match/Wicket
At Home	37	70	1887	408	5016	191	26.26	2.65	59.2	17	4	5.2
Away	29	52	1118.6	182	3519	84	41.89	3.15	52.43	4	0	2.9

The startling difference is visible in not only the averages but also the wickets per matches. Although on an average he bowls 51 overs at home as compared to 38 overs which could be reasoned to the higher reliance on pace attack outside India. With India going with a "3 pacers and Kumble" attack most of the time on pitches outside subcontinents, he has played lesser matches. But for a quality spinner like him, the difference of 2.3 wickets per match is little strange. Obviously, he has to toil harder on pitches abroad but he still manages to get a wicket in every 13 overs out of India as compared to every 10 overs in India. Just that he proves to be a fraction expensive too but that is negligible.

Although he has complaied about the difference in the balls used at home and away which causes the difference in the performance.

At home, Bhajji’s 62% of the wickets have come against Australia, West Indies, South Africa and Zimbabwe in 45% of the matches played at home. These countries are not regarded as highly as some of the other nations like Sri Lanka or Pakistan when playing Indian spinners in their own den is concerned.

	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	Ave	Econ	SR	5’s	10’s	Match/Wicket
Australia	7	14	386.2	78	1185	55	21.5	3.1	51.1	7	3	7.9
South Africa	5	9	285	49	803	32	25.1	2.8	47.0	2	0	6.4
West Indies	3	5	166	54	335	20	16.8	2.0	33.6	2	0	6.7
Zimbabwe	2	4	116.7	27	236	12	19.7	2.0	33.7	1	0	6.0

Not surprisingly, his favourite opposition is Australia. If Ponting averages in the range of 12 in India, good amount of credit goes to Bhajji. He took 23 wickets in the 4 tests after those 2001 heroics which clearly suggest that 2001 success was not a fluke. Australians, look like surrendering to him as he needs just 7 overs to take each of their wickets. The very same bowler needs 13 overs to take a wicket against Pakistan. South Africa has always been vulnerable against quality spin on dusty tracks and Zimbabwe was never strong enough to face the spin music in India.

Leaving aside these four sides, he has taken 72 wicktes in 20 tests against rest 5 sides at 34 a piece in space of 13 overs. His biggest hurdles have been Pakistan without much surprise and New Zealand & England with little surprise. Bhajji has failed to trouble England and New Zealand in India. He needs 13 and 17 overs to take a wicket respectively against these teams and has taken 33 wickets together against these sides in 10 tests. Surely, these two sides are not as vulnerable against spinners, especially India’s second best, as they might be perceived.

Although he has bowled well against Sri Lanka in India with 14 wickets in 3 matches needing 7.3 overs to take each wicket, it’s his record in Sri Lanka in 4 tests which is a little worrisome. He took 7 wickets in these 4 matches needing almost 20 overs to take a wicket. But that was at least 7 years back when Bhajji was relatively inexperienced. But this time he is experienced, has his place almost cemented in the side, Jayasuriya is retired from tests and Kumble is still present in the side with his deadly accuracy. This time, Bhajji needs to prove his worth at least in sub continent this time if not outside it. Currently his record outside India is not worth discussing.

- Vibhash

Test vs ODI!!!

2008-07-17T18:01:00Z

One of the most common positives emanating out of ODIs are, they have made test cricket more exciting and result oriented. More and more tests are ending in four days and even if there are draws, they are not as boring as they used to be earlier. In the last few years either the matches have ended in a meek surrender by one side or have been engrossing. Yeah, there have been boringly batting carnivals also but they are not very frequent. Like, in the recent India-Australia series, draw at Adelaide produced exciting cricket for 5 days and especially on the last day when the quality of cricket made the result a possible outcome almost till the tea. India-SA series started with a painfully boring draw but next two ended in results. Recent SA-England series started off with a draw but SA had to put a record breaking effort to avoid almost certain defeat.

Like the methodology followed earlier, lets look at the last 25 years by breaking the entire period into group of 5 years each. Here, I am not counting SA as they made a comeback to international cricket only in 1991-92 and other infants Zimbabwe & Bangladesh.

Table 1 shows the % of tests drawn for each of the seven test playing nations during the spans of five years for last 25 years. In this period each team played approximately 45 tests per year on an average with New Zealand & Sri Lanka averaging in 37-38 range and England & Australia averaging above 50 attributed to their well designed calendars.

Table 1

% Draw	1983-1988	1988-1993	1993-1998	1998-2003	2003-2008
India	62.50%	43.75%	50.00%	27.66%	39.62%
Australia	46.51%	40.00%	20.37%	13.56%	17.86%
Pakistan	59.09%	53.33%	26.19%	22.73%	30.23%
England	43.86%	31.11%	39.29%	24.56%	29.41%
West Indies	30.43%	27.03%	34.09%	19.64%	26.53%
New Zealand	47.37%	46.67%	34.88%	39.02%	23.08%
Sri Lanka		52.94%	39.53%	27.66%	22.73%

For each of the team, % of draws is highest in the first period and it declines after that. Coincidently, with ODI world cup coming to subcontinent, this was the period in which number of ODIs played started increasing. Effect was probably visible in the next period. The most significant change is visible in Australia’s numbers. Obviously if they are given the credit to change the face of test matches by playing them more aggressively, the numbers show it. They need not have won them all, but their cricket has surely made sure that the matches they play are more result oriented.

Table 2 shows the number of ODIs played by each of these teams. The period 1983-1988 is not counted for Sri Lanka as they got the test status in the middle of this period. India’s ODI per year increase significantly in the period 1993-1998 although they still played 50% of their tests as draws. This was the period when they were easily winning at home although the trend of lose the first test and draw the rest was the trend abroad. Australia’s ODI/year as been consistently increasing 1993 and the % of draws have been declining since then and declining by a significant number. One more interesting observation is – England has the minimum number of ODIs per year in the last two periods. Is it better scheduling by them so that the players do not burn out as England already has a very busy domestic calendar? Or is it that they are lesser in demand to be watched playing ODIs by their own crowd as ODIs have primarily become the function of demand by the viewers especially the fast food lovers. May be either England have more purist followers. They also have a huge soccer following – a segment T20 is trying to target. The story will become more clear with the EPL.

Table 2

ODI/Year	1983-1988	1988-1993	1993-1998	1998-2003	2003-2008
India	18.2	17.2	28.4	34.4	30.4
Australia	20.2	18.6	22.6	27.8	28.6
Pakistan	18.6	22.6	28.8	31.8	25.2
England	13.6	12.6	11.4	21	22.2
West Indies	20.4	19.2	18.4	25.2	23.2
New Zealand	14.4	12.6	21.8	25	22.8
Sri Lanka		11.6	26.2	31	25.4

Just in case you have found it little difficult to glance through the tables, you can have a look the figure below. Red line displays the increase in number of ODIs per year from 1983-1988 to 2003-2008. Blue line indicates the drop in % of test drawn in the same period. The figure looks a bit like mirror image – increase in number of ODIs played causing more results in test matches.

Like any other analysis, this analysis is also debatable and invites various counter arguments like a draw is not just a function of style of playing but also opposition and venue matters. Like, in Chennai 2008, even Sehwag scoring a T20 style triple hundred, the dead track made bowling look innocuous and would not have produced a result even with a bonus day. But numbers do tell some trend.

- Vibhash