A quality discussion, and analysing southpaws

When Albert Einstein was asked to explain his complex theory of relativity to laymen, he did so pithily - "When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." As an analogy, when I was working at my previous firm, every day seemed like a year. The people were nice and I never really was the kind who worked hard but still I felt a lacuna in my life. I just wasn't doing something that came to me naturally. Since the move to Cricinfo on April 19 2010, I cannot help but feel that the void has been filled. Talking, discussing and watching cricket are about as amazing as sitting with the 'pretty girl'. The incredible journey has already touched two years and it is impossible to imagine that this has been the case. I have not been in too many jobs to compare and contrast but can safely attest that the workplace is among the finest one can hope to have. An immensely knowledgeable set of colleagues each with his/her own interests united by a common love- for sport. Meeting cricketing greats, listening to them talk about the game, exchange views on football & tennis, playing quizzes on the fly and getting the opportunity to read, interpret and indulge in cricket stats has given me the chance to live my biggest passion. My friends and family have been the greatest support during my trying times and have encouraged me throughout to excel. Just yesterday, i witnessed numerous 'likes' and comments on an audio clip that I recorded (co-incidentally on the two-year anniversary). Not only does this thrill me, it also gives me additional motivation to enjoy what I do and work on fulfilling my other dreams.

I started humbly by writing stuff on cricket and sports on this blog. Life has come a long way since that November afternoon in 2005 when I wrote my first piece on Brian Lara, my favourite batsman. I guess that explains the name of the blog. Writing was hugely enjoyable and provided me with a chance to get noticed and helped me land a job in Cricinfo. There has been something I have wanted to do for a while now and this analysis is a tribute to the blog and to my family and friends without whom the dream would have hardly been realised.

Part 1: Quality factor

For years, a debate that has raged on in cricket is about the quality of batsmen that a bowler has dismissed. Whenever discussions on fast bowlers start, there are many who wonder if Fred Trueman's demolition job of a hapless Indian team in the early 1950s is something worth considering. What about Australia's easy wins against a declining West Indies team or Sri Lanka's strolls against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe. Now, I have not been able to come up with a definitive list of quality of wickets taken by measuring the averages of each of the batsmen dismissed simply because of the enormity of the task. It is something, however, that I am more than likely to embark on soon. Still, the curiosity got the better of me and I decided to analyse the wickets quality by the batting position of the batsmen dismissed. Although night watchmen can create some confusion, they can be ignored in the overall picture.

The overall batting average over the years has hovered around the 30 mark. It is unlikely to change much given the days of bowlers dominating are long gone. So, I have considered batting averages for each batting position and compared them to the overall average to provide a glimpse of the quality of the batsman (at each position). Of course, this can be extended to each team, individual players and each era. But then, the calculations involved are far more complicated. This, I believe, serves as a fairly good indicator of wicket quality.

In a nutshell, if a bowler picks up 200 wickets overall and has picked up 30 opening batsmen (No. 1 position), the quality for each of the 30 wickets is calculated using (37.12/30.16) where 37.12 is the batting average for openers and 30.16 is the overall average in Tests. Finally, after calculating the quality this way for the number of wickets the bowler has claimed at each position, the numbers are averaged to provide an overall quality measure.

Graph measuring wicket quality of bowlers (300-plus wickets)

When I finally calculated for all the bowlers with 300-plus wickets, there were a few surprises. Chaminda Vaas topped the list followed by Makhaya Ntini. Both were significantly more threatening with the new ball and less likely to run riot with a slightly older ball. Hence the high percentage of top-five batsmen dismissals for these players. Allan Donald and Glenn McGrath take the next two spots. Overall, there are nine bowlers who have a quality factor greater than 100. Needless to say, all are pace bowlers since they primarily get to bowl at the top-order batsmen. Spinners, however, are often the key on dusty tracks and enter the attack quite early. Kumble, Vettori and Muralitharan, by virtue of being the lead bowlers in weak bowling units, have picked up a significant number of top-order wickets. Shane Warne, who figures at the bottom of the list (92% quality) played for most part of his career alongside McGrath, who was outstanding against the top-order batsmen. Warne often came in with two or three wickets down and weaved his magic against the middle order. Although he figures at the bottom of the spinners' list, it is more so because of the nature of the Australian bowling attack in which there were excellent wicket-taking fast bowlers.

Graph of percentage of top-five wickets

Wasim Akram, arguably the finest left-arm fast bowler, figures rather low on the quality front. Akram played with Waqar Younis and both, together, formed one of the most potent combinations in Tests. Akram had remarkable variety and excelled with the old ball. His ability to generate late swing (reverse swing) made him lethal against the middle and lower order batsmen. His presence at the top of the list of tailender wicket-takers confirms this. Warne, with his variations, was also a crucial bowler for Australia when it came to cleaning up the opposition lower order. he tops the list of lower-order wicket-takers (8-11) followed by Lance Gibbs and Harbhajan Singh.

Graph of percentage of lower-order (8-11) wickets

I did another exercise to dispel a few doubts. Many have doubted Muralitharan's ability to perform outside Sri Lanka. While it is true that he has got a huge percentage of his wickets at home, he has been responsible for Sri Lanka's resurgence as a competitive Test team outside Asia. His top-order wickets percentage goes up to 49.67% in matches against top teams (excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) and crosses 50 in matches against these teams outside Asia. This is enough to suggest that Muralitharan was more often than not Sri Lanka's go-to man against the top teams when the other bowlers struggled for impact. And outside Asia, on pitches less conducive to spin, he raised his game even further to give his team a chance.

Part 2: Southpaws rule?

Left-handers. Boon or bane? They certainly provide the variety that is essential to sport. Laver, Connors, McEnroe and now Nadal, have risen to the top of tennis with a playing style that puts off right handers. To begin with, they get to serve to the right-handers' backhand on the 'ad' court when under pressure. The reverse does not hold good though. Righties cant quite do the same to the their left-handed counterparts and end up feeding the powerful forehand. In Nadal's case, Djokovic seems to have an answer for everything but overall, Nadal has troubled everyone including Federer, who is arguably one of the finest players to grace the same. Then doesn't this lead us to the question whether being left-handed gives someone an advantage, perhaps an even unfair one?

Left to right-hander wickets ratio for bowlers

In cricket, left-handers are termed more graceful, languid and pleasing. Cricket aficionados rejoice when they watch a Gower drive or a Lara cut. Is the whole 'grace' thing hyped or is there substance behind some claims? In the beginning, i.e. 1877-1914, there were precious few left-handers. They constituted less than 12% of the total number of batsmen. However, as the decades rolled by, the percentage gradually rose from 13.68% in the period between the World Wars to around 16% around 1970. The next two decades saw a rise in the number but that was nothing compared to the proliferation of lefties post 2000. In the last 12 years (affording some overlap), nearly 26% of batsmen playing are lefties and it is needless to say that bowlers have had a difficult time in adapting.

Left-hander % across the years

Now, all this is not enough to say that being a leftie guarantees more success. By analysing the relationship between individual scores and batsman type, one can perhaps figure out if there is a benefit of being a left-hander. Lara, Hayden, Sobers, Jayasuriya, Gayle have all made triple-centuries which lends weight to the argument that being a left-hander might just assist a batsman to last longer and hence make bigger scores. Let's look at a few numbers though to substantiate the claim. Across all sets of scores considered, left-handers have a significant increase in their percentage when it comes to 300-plus scores. Between 0 and 299, the percentage contribution of left-handers has been almost always around the 25% mark. The only plausible explanation is that left-handers are more likely to negotiate the new ball successfully in the beginning of the innings and later on in the knock. Right-handers are more vulnerable to the new ball at later stages of their innings simply because most bowlers are able to adapt their styles better to bowl to righties. It might never have a perfect explanation but makes for an interesting stat.

Right and left-hander % across various score ranges

All the tables are sorted and provided in the excel sheet below