Using Added Value to assess cricket performances - Part 3 ODI all rounders

Viv Richards - by Aditya Naikdesai

Growing up in the 1980's, cricket was all about three things: the mighty West Indies, Lance Cairns biffing 6's and the "Big 4" all rounders.

I remember sitting on the school bus as someone was sharing the updates of a match that they'd been listening to on the radio: Viv Richards hit a century, Malcolm Marshall took 3 wickets, Lance Cairns hit a ball onto the roof. I may have been mixing up 3 different games, but that's what every match report felt like.

Other matches were all about the battle between Imran Khan and Ian Botham, or Richard Hadlee vs Kapil Dev. Those 4 players transfixed a generation - each of them had the ability to win a match with either the bat or the ball.

Throughout history, all rounders have been both highly sought after, and incredibly rare. To find a player who was capable of playing as a batsman or a bowler was unusual. To find someone who was a star with both was phenomenal.

There are 43 players who took more than 100 wickets and scored more than 2000 runs in ODI cricket. Some of them were batsmen who bowled a bit, some bowlers who occasionally contributed with the bat, some were "bit's and pieces players." An interesting question is if any were truly all rounders. Were any players both above average batsmen and bowlers?

Scoring 100's

One of the criticisms that is sometimes leveled at some batsmen in test cricket is that they can't convert a start. They do the hard part of the innings, get to 25 and then get out, without going on to score a hundred.

On the suggestion of Jamie Lloyd, from The Heavy Roller, I decided to have a look at the conversion rates for current batsmen.

I defined a start as 25 runs, and so I looked at how many times a batsman got out between 25 and 99 and how many times they got past 100. I did not count not outs between 25 and 99. I only looked at innings in the top 7 and at batsmen who had passed 25 more than 10 times. I also only looked at innings in the last 10 years, as the conditions have changed quite a lot between the 90's and now, so it was better to restrict it to this time frame. I also ignored any batsmen who hadn't played an innings in the past 4 years.

Here's the top of the list:

Name	Dismissals 25 - 99	100s	Conversion rate
JH Kallis	58	34	37.0%
AG Prince	22	11	33.3%
RR Sarwan	32	15	31.9%
Mohammad Yousuf	33	15	31.3%
KC Sangakkara	59	26	30.6%
MJ Clarke	44	19	30.2%
RT Ponting	72	31	30.1%
AN Cook	51	20	28.2%
R Dravid	67	26	28.0%
DPMD Jayawardene	58	22	27.5%
HM Amla	40	15	27.3%
S Chanderpaul	54	20	27.0%
IR Bell	44	16	26.7%
SR Tendulkar	61	22	26.5%
Younis Khan	43	15	25.9%
GC Smith	72	25	25.8%
KP Pietersen	60	20	25.0%
IJL Trott	21	7	25.0%
JDP Oram	15	5	25.0%
Shahid Afridi	9	3	25.0%

We see a list of some of the best modern batsmen there, headed by the incomparable Jacques Kallis. There is also a distinct lack of current New Zealand batsmen there, with only Jacob Oram (who retired from tests 3 years ago) in the list.

At the other end of the table are a lot of wicket-keepers and bowling all-rounders.

Here it is sorted from worst rate.

Name	Dismissals 25 - 99	100s	Conversion rate
MV Boucher	50	2	3.8%
Mushfiqur Rahim	22	1	4.3%
DS Smith	21	1	4.5%
T Taibu	20	1	4.8%
AD Mathews	18	1	5.3%
SCJ Broad	18	1	5.3%
Shahriar Nafees	18	1	5.3%
SR Watson	34	2	5.6%
DJG Sammy	15	1	6.3%
Junaid Siddique	14	1	6.7%
MG Johnson	13	1	7.1%
Umar Akmal	13	1	7.1%
KD Karthik	12	1	7.7%
NT Paranavitana	23	2	8.0%
Harbhajan Singh	22	2	8.3%
Faisal Iqbal	11	1	8.3%
DJ Bravo	32	3	8.6%
Shoaib Malik	21	2	8.7%
D Ramdin	21	2	8.7%
Shakib Al Hasan	21	2	8.7%
BJ Haddin	27	3	10.0%
Imran Farhat	27	3	10.0%
AB Barath	9	1	10.0%
Salman Butt	25	3	10.7%
Yasir Hameed	16	2	11.1%
Misbah-ul-Haq	23	3	11.5%
MS Dhoni	36	5	12.2%
BB McCullum	42	6	12.5%
MJ Guptill	14	2	12.5%
Mahmudullah	7	1	12.5%

It makes me wonder why there are so many keepers there. Perhaps the temperament that makes someone a good keeper is not suited to getting big scores, alternatively it could be that keepers are more likely to get off to a start, as they tend to have a good eye, and are also more likely to be batting with the tail, hence are more likely to hit out. Alternatively it could be that keepers are more likely to get tired, as they have a lot of work to do in the field. For more, see Does keeping influence batting.

If we ignore the wicket-keepers and bowlers, there are a few players who are in there form Pakistan and also one each from New Zealand, Sri Lanka Bangladesh. The Pakistani batsmen have not played many home matches in this time, and I wondered if there was any significant difference for players at home and away.

Once I isolated out home and away performances there was a clear difference. I home matches players converted 21.1% of starts to hundreds, while away players only converted 17.6%

The next step was to look at who was the best at converting starts to hundreds away from home, as it is obviously a more difficult skill.

Name	Dismissals 25 - 99	100s	Conversion rate
JA Rudolph	9	5	35.7%
JH Kallis	24	13	35.1%
AJ Strauss	23	11	32.4%
AN Cook	21	10	32.3%
TT Samaraweera	14	6	30.0%
SR Tendulkar	36	14	28.0%
R Dravid	39	15	27.8%
MJ Clarke	21	8	27.6%
GC Smith	37	14	27.5%
AG Prince	11	4	26.7%
TM Dilshan	17	6	26.1%
RT Ponting	33	11	25.0%

The name at the top is surprising. Jacques Rudolph has scored 5 of his 6 hundreds away from South Africa. He's only converted 1 of his 14 starts at home. Once we remove the penalty for playing a lot of matches in England on difficult pitches, Strauss and Cook move up the list. Likewise once we take Sangakkara out of Sri Lanka his numbers don't look nearly as good.

At the bottom of the list, there are still a number of 'keepers and bowlers, but a couple of different batsmen appear.

Name	Dismissals 25 - 99	100s	Conversion rate
MV Boucher	27	0	0.0%
MS Dhoni	20	1	4.8%
SR Watson	18	1	5.3%
D Ramdin	15	1	6.3%
Imran Farhat	15	1	6.3%
LRPL Taylor	12	1	7.7%
Mohammad Ashraful	11	1	8.3%
Kamran Akmal	19	2	9.5%

Farhat, Taylor and Ashraful are all terrible at converting starts when they are away from home. Ashraful might not get to play much more test cricket, but the other two need to address this urgently.

The final question is which teams are best at converting starts.

These numbers are quite interesting.

Team	Overall	Home	Away	Difference
South Africa	23.7%	24.0%	23.4%	0.7%
Australia	23.5%	25.5%	21.5%	4.0%
England	21.8%	24.7%	18.4%	6.4%
Sri Lanka	21.2%	21.6%	20.7%	0.9%
India	19.7%	20.9%	18.9%	2.0%
West Indies	18.6%	22.9%	14.9%	8.0%
Pakistan	17.0%	24.6%	13.9%	10.7%
New Zealand	14.5%	14.2%	14.7%	-0.5%
Zimbabwe	6.8%	7.7%	5.0%	2.7%
Bangladesh	6.0%	5.8%	6.2%	-0.3%

Only New Zealand and Bangladesh do better away from home. It is not a massive surprise in the case of New Zealand as the New Zealand pitches tend to be bowler friendly, and a good ball that misbehaves off the pitch can unseat even the most set batsman. It's part of the reason why batsmen from round the world tend to have significantly lower averages playing against the Blackcaps in NZ than playing them at home. Bangladesh is a little more difficult to understand, but the number at home and away are both particularly poor for Bangladesh, so it might not really tell us anything.

The difference between the better sides over this period (South Africa, Australia, England) and the worst ones (Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) is fairly clear in this statistic, and so perhaps the ability to convert really is an important factor when assessing the quality or otherwise of a batsman.

Has Andre Russell replaced MS Dhoni as the best closer in ODI's

I watched Andre Russell's batting in the third ODI in St Kitts with some interest. The person sitting next to me in the press box had mentioned that he rated Russell, and so naturally I looked up his numbers. They were impressive; so I wanted to see what he could do. On a pitch where none of his team mates scored over 20, he got 42* off 24 balls. The next match he got 29 off 16, followed by the latest 59* off 40. He has now scored over 20 at better than a run a ball in eight of his last 11 innings.

To put this in context, there have been 5148 innings by batsmen batting at number 6 or lower in the last 3 years, and 407 of them have been over 20 at a strike rate of 100 or more. This is slightly under 8%, so a batsman doing this in 73% of his recent innings is remarkable. To put it in further context Dhoni's managed it only 3 times in his last 11, and two of those were not batting at 6 or lower.

It made me wonder if he had actually overtaken Dhoni as the most effective lower order batsman in the world. So I looked at all batsmen in the last 3 years who had batted at 6 or lower at least 15 times. The results were surprising.

I have sorted them by batting index, which I believe is the best way to compare batsmen in limited overs cricket. For more info on batting index click here.

Name	Innings	Runs	Average	Strike rate	Index
JEC Franklin (NZ)	15	447	55.87	88.33	49.36
AD Russell (WI)	21	586	36.62	123.62	45.28
DJ Hussey (Aus)	22	747	43.94	98.03	43.08
MS Dhoni (India)	30	903	50.16	78.72	39.49
MEK Hussey (Aus)	28	894	40.63	94.80	38.52
YK Pathan (India)	18	470	31.33	119.89	37.57
Umar Akmal (Pak)	31	992	41.33	84.93	35.11
SK Raina (India)	37	1034	35.65	97.73	34.85
Shahid Afridi (Pak)	56	1357	26.09	130.10	33.95
MG Johnson (Aus)	32	484	25.47	112.29	28.61
KA Pollard (WI)	36	1019	29.97	92.72	27.79

The surprise was first that Franklin was at the top. I knew that Franklin had performed well at the lower levels. I knew that he had improved a lot as a batsman. But I did not expect him to have a batting index of 49.36 or an average of 55.87. Secondly I genuinely expected that Dhoni would be well clear of the pack, with only potentially Angelo Mathews and Andre Russell near him. To see Dhoni in 4th and Mathews all the way down in 14th place was a surprise.

Russell is right near the top. To average 36.62 while striking at over 120 is really very impressive.

Russell has been particularly good in the first innings in matches, taking his team to big scores after they had been in some trouble. A lot of lower order players do much better when chasing a score than setting a target, but not Andre. Here are his numbers sorted by innings:

	Innings	Runs	Average	Strike Rate	Batting Index
1st Innings	12	327	40.87	135.68	55.46
2nd Innings	9	259	32.38	111.16	35.99

There is a significant difference, but his batting index in the 2nd innings is still better than Jacques Kallis' career figure.

I had to modify my normal criteria of 15 innings when comparing his first innings stats, as he has only played 12, so these numbers are less significant, but here is how he stacks up against all lower order batsmen (6-11) in ODI's: (minimum 12 innings)

Name	Runs	Average	S/R	Index
AD Russell (WI)	327	40.87	135.68	55.46
MEK Hussey (Aus)	2128	50.66	96.28	48.79
MG Bevan (Aus)	2207	55.17	81.02	44.7
M Azharuddin (India)	352	44	96.17	42.32
DJ Hussey (Aus)	589	39.26	106.31	41.75
L Klusener (SA)	1204	46.3	88.07	40.79
OA Shah (Eng)	546	42	95.62	40.16
DS Lehmann (Aus)	401	40.1	98.28	39.41
YK Pathan (India)	325	32.5	119.48	38.83
MS Dhoni (Asia/India)	1412	41.52	88.91	36.93

Here again Russell shines. It is important to note that he has not played many innings yet, and so bowlers have not got much information yet on what causes him to struggle. Inevitably there is a fluctuation in most players figures. First they are unstoppable, then they get figured out (known as second season syndrome). Then, if they are good enough, they learn how to adapt their game and come back better than before. Their opponents then figure out a new weakness, and the cycle continues. Often fluctuations in "form" are as much down to the ball being bowled in a different place as they are about the batsman not being on his game.

But regardless of how small the sample size is, the numbers are still very impressive. Averaging over 40 at a strike rate over 130 is quite frankly ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as him batting at number 9 for the West Indies. However I see Gibson's dilemma there: if Russell is winning games at 9, why move him?

It is still early days in his career, but they are promising signs. Andre Russell is certainly a man to watch in when he has the bat in his hands.

The morning session on day 4

The day started ominously for the West Indies with Ravi Rampaul getting out caught by Prior off Finn on the third ball, but the first over was no indication at all of what was to come. The next two hours contained a perfect example of the best of test cricket.

Tino Best came out to the wicket, walking with a swagger that really did not fit with a number 11 with a highest score of 27. But he took no time to declare his intent. He swung wildly at the first few deliveries, connecting with a couple, and made it to 20 off 14 balls. At the other end the under fire Denesh Ramdin was slowly pushing the ball round the field and accumulating runs in a sensible fashion.

The English bowlers were bowling too short to Best, and he was enjoying it. All of a sudden his swagger was at a new level. He was mixing up glorious back foot drives and streaky edges, but no matter how aesthetically pleasing the shot was, they all managed to miss the fielders and find their way to the boundary. The English bowlers were still smiling, and laughing about it, thinking that it was just a tail-ender having a brief larrop. But it was much more than that.

After 44 balls Best became the first number 11 to score a fifty against England in over 100 years. He is only the thirteenth player to score a test fifty from number 11. At about this time the decided to start to bat sensibly. He only scored 1 boundary in the next 10 overs, leaving the bulk of the scoring up to Ramdin. The partnership reached 100 after 19.3 overs.

The next over Ramdin bought up his hundred and pulled out a note from his pocket and held it up for the cameras to see. It read "Yea Viv Talk Now," meaning something like "what are you saying now Viv" in reference to an article that Sir Vivian Richards had written about Ramdin before the match saying that "For some reason, he has deteriorated in such a big way. Just the way he is walking back, he looks like a totally lost guy." Ramdin answered him with the bat, but his response with the note paper was for some a step too far. Ian Botham went as far as to suggest that Ramdin would be advised to hide when he gets back into the pavilion.

It wasn't long before the irrepressible Best got back into the action. He hit a four to go past Zaheer Khan's score of 75, the previous highest score by a number 11 in test history. Best then set his sights on a hundred before lunch. He made it into the 90's with 5 overs in hand and it was potentially going to a huge embarrassment for England, conceding a century to a number 11. Unfortunately, however the fairytale came to an end at 95 when Best tried to hit a slower ball out of the park to bring it up in style. West Indies went from 280/8 overnight to an imposing 426 all out. With the shortened game, the follow on target is 150, so England will need 288 to avoid the follow on.

At this point there are only two realistic options remaining: a West Indian win or a (somewhat more likely) draw. It will be interesting to see how the inexperienced West Indian bowling line up will respond to platform that their colleagues have established.

8th Wicket partnership

One remarkable feature of the current test match happening in Hamilton is the 8th wicket partnership between Williamson and Southee. Already at 83 it is equal with the 2nd wicket partnership as the largest of the innings.

I wondered if this partnership was remarkable, so I looked up a list of all 100 run 8th wicket partnerships where the score started at 200 or less.

The surprising thing was how many there were. If Williamson and Southee manage to make another 17 runs then they will be the 5th partnership to achieve this since August 2009.

Given that it has only happened 33 times in the history of cricket, this seems like a very large number.