Stat Attack: England's bowlers in ODIs....continued

Debate has raged between two blog readers - one of whom is me and the other had to be prompted to read my previous blog entry - about my entry yesterday on England's ODI bowlers. Well I say rage, I mean my pal Matt Hindle raised an interesting question after reading the post.

The question was, how does having economical bowlers impact on the outcome of series? Or something along those lines anyway. Well I gamely took on the challenge thrown down to me, and because I didn't want to send myself mental, I restricted the scope of this investigation to bilateral ODI series involving two of the top 8 test sides (England, Australia, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Pakistan and West Indies) since January 2008, so it is by no means comprehensive, merely representative.

There have been 21 series from January 2008 to now according to Cricinfo, one of those ended in a draw (Chappell-Hadlee Series in 2008) so wasn't included, and in one series (staggeringly England v Australia in 2009) both teams had five bowlers conceding 5 runs or less per over bowled.

So that leaves 19 series which had a result other than a draw in either case. In 68% of those 19, i.e. in 13 of those series, the team who had more bowlers conceding 5 runs an over or less came out on top. Over two-thirds is pretty conclusive. Having a higher number of frugal bowlers helps you win cricket matches. Doesn't sound all that ground breaking when you put it like that, but its a fact!

Like I said above, this is by no means a fool-proof analysis but it is nonetheless interesting (no really, it IS). Clearly, from the analysis in the previous blog, England have a lack of bowlers capable of stemming the flow of runs, and this blog shows that those bowlers make it easier to win series.

So what's the solution? Well its line and length isn't it? Those most frugal bowlers ever in ODIs, the McGraths and Pollocks of this world were line and length merchants. Too often in limited overs cricket the likes of Anderson and Broad have varied their lengths when it wasn't always necessary to do so. I'm not suggesting they should stick to it rigidly, but more often than not that sort of bowling works wonders.

Why am I not being recruited as England's bowling coach?

Note: I should reiterate that I don't think runs conceded per over is the only measure of success in limited overs internationals, this is just an exercise to see how it can bring an impact.

Stat attack: England's bowlers in ODIs

After England's efficient if unspectacular whitewash of Bangladesh, I thought I'd have a look at some stats from the series, surely they would reflect well on England's bowlers I thought...not really so.

In a series that England took relatively easily, only three England bowlers conceded less than 5 runs per over - Bresnan, Swann and Wright. Similarly three Bangladeshi bowlers went at less than 5 RPO - Razzak, Shakib and Shuvo. That got me thinking when was the last time England bowlers going at less than 5 an over outnumbered opposition bowlers doing the same?

You have to go back to the Natwest Series, West Indies in England in 2009 - a tour which the Windies clearly didn't fancy much - to find such a situation. In that series Anderson, Bresnan, Swann and Collie went at less than 5, and only Sammy and Benn did so for the opposition. But I'm not sure that's saying much.

In the series before that, India v England in India, in which even Andrew Flintoff played, precisely zero England players went at less than 5 (admittedly Fred did go at exactly 5), compared with Zaheer, Munaf and Yuvraj going at under 5 in a run-filled series.

Against South Africa, a series which England won in late 2009, only Bresnan maintained an economy rate below 5, while Morkel, Botha, Duminy and Langeveldt did so for South Africa. Go back one series to the interminable ODI series after the Ashes, and while Swann, Mascarenhas and Wright were below 5 an over, Hauritz, Bracken, Hopes and Siddle did so for the Aussies.

But the most damning analysis comes at the Champions Trophy, where England were actually pretty impressive. Every side bar England (including West Indies) had at least two bowlers going at below 5 an over - Australia had five, Pakistan four, so too New Zealand and India, South Africa and Sri Lanka all had three. England's lone representative was James Anderson, 4.25 runs per over.

Of course looking at one statistic in isolation doesn't tell the story - our bowlers might have been expensive against South Africa last year but we still won the series - but it is interesting that we seem to have had a real issue keeping the run rate down in recent years.

Indeed, a look at all of the 8 major nations over the last five years shows that England have only had 7 players restrict the run scoring below five an over (assuming 20 matches/100 overs) - and one of them is Jamie Dalrymple - interestingly the only nation they beat in this is India, which shows up their bowling malaise as well!

Keeping the runs down isn't the be all and end all, but its a good place to start, restricting a sides run scoring brings pressure and pressure brings wickets, England could do worse than focusing on stemming the flow of runs.

Top Five: Big Hitters

I've just watched a bit of Chris Gayle taking it to the Zimbabwe attack, and it got me thinking about power hitters.  Ever since that 1996 World Cup final, a premium has been placed on having some sort of hitter in the side, someone who can clear the infield in the powerplay overs and pepper the boundaries even with the field spread.  So who are the best exponents of this art?

1. Sanath Jayasuriya:  The original pinch hitter, it was Jayasuriya who started the craze, if not single handedly winning the World Cup for Sri Lanka, he was certainly their matchwinner with the bat.  Still smashing the ball over the ropes in his forties, he holds the record for the highest percentage of runs scored in boundaries in international Twenty20s - an impressive 71%.
   
2. Virender Sehwag:  What is there to say about this man that hasn't already been said?  One of only two players who have scored over 5,000 runs in ODIs to have done so at a strike rate of over 100, and he averages 11 better than the other man (more of whom later), plus a strike rate in tests of over 80.  The sheer brutality of his batting is a thrill to watch.
   
3. Shahid Afridi:  He hit what is still the fastest hundred in ODI history on debut at just 16, and he's been battering it about ever since.  Once a batting all rounder, now is more consistently a threat with the ball, but when he gets going you'd better be watching because its a sight to behold.  The violence with which he hits the ball is incredible, and there's always something happening when Boom Boom is about.
   
4. Yuvraj Singh:  How could I leave out the man who clobbered Stuart Broad for six sixes in an over in the first World Twenty20 all the way back in 2007:
   
   The short arm jab that Yuvraj seems to have perfected, it looks more like a golf stroke, is really something impressive to watch.  Yuvraj has walloped more sixes than he has fours in international Twenty20s, which unique in all forms of cricket as far as I'm aware.  Sheer power.
5. Chris Gayle:  The Coolest Man In Cricket, Gayle is scintillating and infuriating in equal measure but when he tees off the crowd had better be wearing hard hats.  His knock off 88 in the World Twenty20 at the Oval last year was staggering - Brett Lee was picked off like a club cricketer (alas no videos exist!).  He is a colossus at the crease - well over 6 feet and shoulders as wide as a London bus.  Not many can match his sheer power.
   

Honourable mentions for Brendon McCullum and Abdul Razzaq, Adam Gilchrist wasn't bad either!  I'm sure there's plenty of others besides as well!

Video of the week: Flying Stumps

The first ever video of the week is this magnificent collection of stump-splatterers from around the world:



My personal favourite is of course at 1m 43s, where an utterly flummoxed Michael Clarke has his off stump flattened by Simon Jones (remember him?!) at Old Trafford in the 2005 Ashes series.

We need to talk about Kevin

I'm not one to engage in hyperbole, but Kevin Pietersen's form is utterly dreadful, and barring one or two Twenty20 innings and a knock of 80 against South Africa, what is going on?


Kevin Pietersen in brighter days!

Much has been said on every blog and in every newspaper about his recent travails, since July last year he's averaging in the mid twenties across all forms, and that average isn't going in the right direction. I read on The Corridor that he hasn't passed 50 in a one day international since 2008 - I'm worried!

It could just be a dip in form, but this is getting on for a very lengthy dip in form, and what's more worrying is the way he's playing, not just that he's not making scores. His weakness against left-arm spin is still very much to the fore, but I'm also concerned at his manner at the crease and his shot selection. When he used to exude confidence at the crease, now he looks fidgety and nervous.

Maybe this is just a consequence of a bad run of form, and he just needs time to sort it out, I certainly hope that is the case. The two tests against Bangladesh must now be seen as crucial to the rest of the year. He needs to spend hours at the crease to find his mojo again.

On the plus side, he's been in terrible form and yet England haven't been in terminal decline, he's a wonderful player to have in good touch but we've proved we have other match winning batsmen to fill his boots for now.

What's Graham Napier done wrong?

I've only just clocked that Graham Napier, the Essex all rounder, was omitted from the 30 man squad named for the World Twenty20 in the Windies in May, surely this is just a typo?!

They select the poor guy for the last World Twenty20 (incredibly less than 12 months before the next - overkill anyone?), they don't play him in a single match despite the fact that the team who played in the first match didn't cover themselves in glory, and yet they seem to think they've seen enough to discard him from the tournament in May?

Its a blow to his confidence for sure, though this story on Cricinfo shows, on the surface at least, that he's determined to get back into the selectors mindset.

Surely there should be a place in the squad for a man who has demonstrated the ability to tear attacks apart in England, and is useful with the ball (leading wicket taker in the New Zealand Twenty20 competition) - his county record must be at least as good with the ball as Luke Wright. I'm very disappointed with England on this, and I hope there's a chance to rectify it, but the lack of domestic Twenty20 (except the IPL, and I'm not sure how much he'll play there) between now and the World Twenty20 means that is very unlikely.

Eoin Morgan for the Ashes

Its been said elsewhere that Eoin Morgan, he of the rubber wrists and super-humanly cool temperament, is a dark horse for the Ashes squad when England head back down under hoping to retain the Little Urn come November. I'd go further than that and say they should buy his ticket now and hope BA don't go on strike.


This is what those rubber wrists are capable of!

As I've said before, his record in the longer form of the game isn't startlingly good, but neither is it bad, and I keep forgetting that he's only 23, he's barely getting started!

His 110 off 104 balls yesterday was a match winner, and a stunning one at that. It required a cool head and plenty of thought. He couldn't go out thrashing from ball one because of the pace of the pitch and the situation. What England have been lacking recently is just that, players who can play the situation.

One of the key reasons why Collingwood has become a player of such enormous worth is his ability to change the way he plays according to the situation - Morgan has that ability too. He might start his innings with a strike rate of 50 from the first 20 balls, but he does that because he knows he can accelerate past a strike rate of 200 later in the innings.

If he can adapt and play with such an apparently cool temperament (as much as this sort of thing can ever be tested in limited overs games), why shouldn't he be able to adapt his game for test cricket? The pressure cooker of Ashes cricket in Australia is the ultimate test of what a player has up top, and I for one think Eoin Morgan is up to the task.

Also, he's not English, which seems to stand you in good stead for selection for England of late!