Land of the long list of lefties

In a few hours New Zealand will take the field against South Africa. There are two players likely to be named in the team who's selection will be quite remarkable.

Corey Anderson is a big all rounder from Canterbury (originally) who hits a big ball and bowls left-arm medium fast. He was a prodigious talent at youth level, making the Canterbury side at age 16, while still at school.

Mitchell McClenaghan is a left-arm fast bowler who is a little erratic and injury prone, but who has a tendency to take wickets. Lots of wickets. Think of him as a New Zealand version of Mitchell Johnson. Not always on target, but capable of occasionally bowling a ball that could get through Rahul Dravid or Brian Lara.

While their selections are not in themselves particularly notable, there is one thing that is: they are both left-arm pace bowlers, adding to a very long list of NZ left-armers.

This year New Zealand has used Trent Boult, Niel Wagner, Andy McKay, James Franklin and Michael Bates at the bowling crease. There is only one other year in history when a team has selected 5 left-arm pace bowlers to play international cricket. In 2007 Sri Lanka actually picked 6 (although Zoysa didn't actually bowl in the one match he was selected for).

And New Zealand are probably against the best team to bowl left-arm pace against. South Africa's batsmen have done well against every type of bowling, but they have done less well against left-arm pace than any other type. In the last 4 years they average about 41 against right arm spin, 39 against left-arm spin or right arm pace but only 35 against left-arm pace. An average of 35 suggest that left-arm pace isn't a silver bullet, but it is a significant difference, and one that New Zealand might be aware of.

So far this year most of the South African batsmen have been dismissed at least once by a left-armer, despite many of them having only faced a couple of innings from a left-armer. Here are the stats for everyone who has faced a left-arm pace bowler at least 5 times:

Name	Total Runs	Total Dismissals	Average
Smith	122	1	122
A Petersen	66	4	16.5
Amla	162	2	81
Kallis	100	4	25
de Villiers	142	1	142
Levi	34	2	17
Duminy	21	0	-
du Plessis	96	1	96

The New Zealand bowlers are likely to be eagerly waiting to bowl to Petersen and Kallis. The battle between the South African batsmen and the New Zealand left-armers is certainly one aspect of the tour that I'm going to be looking forward to watching immensely.

Law 23 and Steven Finn

Here is a snippet from Law 23, Part 4:

"vi) the striker is distracted by any noise or movement or in any other way while he is preparing to receive, or receiving a delivery. This shall apply whether the source of the distraction is within the game or outside it."

The conditions for a dead ball are quite clear. The batsman has to be distracted. If the batsman is not distracted, then the ball should not be declared dead.

The test is not "does the umpire think that the batsman should have been distracted." The test is "was the batsman distracted."

The timing is also interesting. When is the ball dead? A possible argument is that the ball should be declared dead immediately once an umpire feels that the batsman is likely to be distracted. However that's not the test. The test is if the batsman was distracted. The ball also does not have to be declared dead immediately once an incident has happened. See for example Tom Smith's description of how to rule on an injury:

"Example 4
The ball has been hit into the outfield and the fielder, in attempting to stop it, falls and is in obvious pain through a serious injury.
Before calling Dead ball, the umpire should look to see if the ball is continuing towards the boundary. If it is and it will reach the boundary almost immediately, he would not call Dead ball as once the ball crosses the boundary it is going to be dead anyway. By delaying the call he will neither be depriving the batting side of a boundary nor unnecessarily delaying getting attention to the stricken fielder"
(Smith, 2003, p.167)

It is completely within the consistent ruling of Law 23 to see what happens, and then call the ball as dead if necessary.

Which brings us to the Steven Finn breaking the wickets with his leg. The correct ruling here is that the umpire should see if the batsman was distracted or not before calling the ball dead.

If the batsman hits the ball for 4, or 2, then it should not be a dead ball, as the batsman was clearly not distracted. If the ball goes down the leg side for what would have normally been called a wide, then it should be called wide, not dead ball, as even if the batsman was distracted there was no opportunity for him to play a shot to it.

In the South Africa test where the precedent was set the first three were not called. It was only once Graeme Smith approached the umpire saying that he found it distracting that the umpire started to call it dead.

In the Super 8 match James Franklin did not make any such complaint, as as a result the law was applied incorrectly.

Incorrect interpretation of this rule cost New Zealand significantly in the last game. It would be crazy if it continued to be ruled incorrectly throughout the rest of the tournament. This is not something that the MCC Laws sub-committee needs to look at. The law is clear, and just needs to be applied correctly.

World T20 Statistics

Here is a list of tables of some different statistics from the World T20. I have separate tables for the Group stage, the Super 8's and the overall data. Interestingly the batting numbers are reasonable similar, but the bowling numbers are significantly different. This is possibly a reflection on the strengths of the teams that missed out on the next stage, Bangladesh, Ireland and Afghanistan all have strong bowling line-ups and while Zimbabwe's strength is normally more about their batting, it didn't really fire in this tournament.

All of these are statistics that I have worked out previously, although I had to modify my DL partnership formula to reflect the nature of T20 cricket. I decided to use a score of 147 as an expected score as it's 56.6% of 260, and 56.5% is the resources left in an ODI match shortened to 20 overs.

I will try to update these regularly throughout the tournament.

Best innings:

For more info on how this is calculated see this post:

Group stage
Super 8's
Knockout Stage *
Overall Tournament

Best Partnerships:

Here I take into account the teams situation at the start and the teams situation at the end. Effectively these are the partnerships that have made the biggest contribution to their team's score. For more information see this post:

Group stage
Super 8's
Knockout Stage *
Overall Tournament

Contribution made by bowlers:

Every wicket is worth about 5 runs to a teams total. So I subtract 5 runs per wicket, and then work out the economy rate. For more info see this post:

Group stage
Super 8's
Knockout Stage *
Overall Tournament

Activity rates:

This is the runs a batsman scores per delivery that doesn't get hit to the boundary. I explain this in more detail in the glossary:

(minimum 10 balls faced)

Group stage
Super 8's
Knockout Stage
Overall Tournament

*I have reached my page limit on this platform, so these pages are in a different format.

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.