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.

How to almost double Bangladesh's success rate.

In One Day cricket there are a few cliches. Some are general like "catches win matches." Others are more specific, like "keep wickets in hand for the final overs" and "it's a cardinal sin to get bowled out before the end of 50 overs." (not referring to the Filipino version.) However there is one factor that is regularly overlooked, run outs.

In their last 193 matches that ended in a result, Bangladesh have taken 116 run outs. In the matches where they haven't taken a run out they have won just over a quarter, 25.9%. In the matches where they have taken at least one run out they have won just under half, 48.2%.

A similar (but not so dramatic) difference is true for most teams. Here are the winning percentages from the last 200 matches for each team (I've excluded Zimbabwe as they have not played sufficient matches against reasonable opposition recently):

Team	No run outs	With run outs	Improvement
Australia	66.3	69.4	4.6
Bangladesh	25.9	48.2	86.1
England	40.2	60.2	49.7
India	50.6	67	32.5
New Zealand	44.1	62.7	42
Pakistan	49	62.1	26.9
South Africa	65.9	63.8	-3.1
Sri Lanka	52.6	59	12.2
West Indies	35.4	47	32.7
Overall	47.4	60.1	26.8

It is fairly clear that run outs make a significant difference to a teams winning percentage. Only Bangladesh and West Indies have losing records if they manage a run out, and then it's only by a couple of matches.

The surprising exceptions here are South Africa and Australia. South Africa are the team most likely to run someone out, taking .78 run outs per match, but they actually do better when they don't manage to run anyone out than when they do. There are a couple of possible reasons for this. Run-outs are often a result of pressure, and so when a team is under pressure they are more likely to get run out. However, if a team has a reputation as being very good at fielding, then teams take less risks. Taking less risks results in less runs. It may be that the times that South Africa don't get run outs is when their opponents are not taking risks, and as a result they are scoring less anyway.

Breaking the numbers down further, it is interesting to see how they work in more detail.

Here are the winning percentages by number of run outs. This covers 1634 completed innings, but there were very few innings with 3 or 4 run outs, so the numbers are less reliable for those two categories (4 run outs have occurred only 6 times in this time period.)

Team	0 run outs	1 run out	2 run outs	3 run outs	4 run outs
Australia	66.3	67.2	77.3	60	-
Bangladesh	25.9	44.4	58.8	0	75
England	40.2	65.1	47.8	57.1	-
India	50.6	66.1	72.7	66.7	0
New Zealand	44.1	54.5	65.2	100	-
Pakistan	49	58.1	72.2	100	100
South Africa	65.9	61	66.7	72.7	-
Sri Lanka	52.6	56.1	61.9	80	-
West Indies	35.4	43.6	50	66.7	-
Overall	47.4	57.5	63.5	72.2	66.7

If we look at the overall rate, we can get an idea as to what a run out is worth. Every run out roughly adds 8% to the winning percentage.

However this does not adequately explain the data, as there is a big fluctuation between the better teams and the worse teams. A better option is to look at the losing percentage. It turns out that every run-out reduces the chance of losing by 19%. For example Pakistan lose 51% of their matches when they have no run outs. If they have 1 run out that is reduced by 19% to 41.3%, so we expect them to win 58.7%. If we look at the table above they actually win 58.1% which is remarkably close.

This is nice, but what does it actually mean in a game situation?

Simply it means that creating, and then taking, run out opportunities is a very effective way for a side to win games. It may be an idea for teams to actually think about how they are going to achieve run outs, rather than just hope that the batsmen make a mistake. An example of this is perhaps Martin Guptill running out Marlon Samuels in Wednesday's game at St Kitts. Guptill was sharp enough to be able to run out Samuels without Samuels even setting off for a run. It was amazing skill on the part of the fielder, but also awareness of the situation and good field placement by Williamson.

This sort of skill is as likely to turn a game as bowling a wicket maiden or hitting a quickfire cameo is, and as such it is something that captains and fielders need to think about, and plan for.

Match report 3rd ODI WI v NZ Warner Park, Bassterre, St Kitts

If you had not seen any other matches this series and arrived to watch this one, you would think that New Zealand were such a superior side that there was little chance of West Indies being able to take a game off them.

This was a dominant performance. New Zealand batted better, bowled better and fielded better.

It started with a great innings from Rob Nicol. Daniel Flynn looked like a world class batsman before chopping one on. However West Indies managed to pick up wickets at regular intervals throughout the innings, but most of them were from short balls that the New Zealand batsmen mistimed. Sammy, Narine and Sammy managed to create some pressure on the New Zealand batsmen. Sammy in particular looked outstanding.

He gave some clues as to how he thought the pitch was playing by moving Chris Gayle into a short straight mid on during the powerplay, banking on New Zealand struggling to time the ball. After the game Williamson noted that the pitch was slower than they had expected, but he felt that it was a good cricket wicket, that gave a chance for both batsmen and bowlers.

New Zealand's innings stalled after the 22nd over, and it took until the 33rd before they managed to get some momentum, but they rode the tempo change well and recovered from 141/5 off 34 to get to what looked like a modest total of 249/9. However sometimes it is difficult to know how good a score is until both teams have batted.

The first over from Kyle Mills went for two boundaries, but the big story was the next over. Trent Boult was given the ball ahead of Tim Southee, with the wind coming over his left shoulder. Normally this end would be given to the senior bowler in the team, but Williamson got the decision completely correct in this match. Southee generally bowls outswing, and while having the wind at his back would help his pace, Boult looked quicker in practice in Jamaica. Mills is the ideal bowler to bowl into that sort of wind. It assists his shape away from the right-hander and also helps the ball sit up a bit more.

Boult's first over got Gayle to defend 4 balls, avoid a quick bouncer and then edge one just between first slip (who was probably too wide) and the keeper. It was a promising start. More was to come in his next over as he picked up the dangerous Johnson Charles; lbw to a perfect inswinging yorker.

Gayle seemed to be struggling with the pace of Boult, so Williamson brought on Southee to give him some quick bowling at the body from both ends. The plan worked. Gayle edged Southee to Nicol, and all of a sudden 250 looked a long way away for the West Indies.

4 overs later it was 52/4 and the game was firmly in New Zealand's favour. 2 more overs and Guptill produced some brilliance to run out Samuels, and West Indies were staggering at 62/5. New Zealand immediately took the bowling powerplay. The 5 overs with the field up cost a total of 9 runs. New Zealand had rediscovered their fielding prowess.

Darren Sammy showed that it was a good pitch to be a tall medium pacer on. Jacob Oram is also a tall medium pacer and it was equally good for him, taking 2/22.

Some rearguard tail-end hitting from Andre Russell almost provided some respectability for the West Indies, but they still lost by 88 runs. Russell's 43* off 24 balls was the only score over 20.

The man of the match was a difficult decision for this match. Nicol top-scored with 59, Nathan McCullum lead the recovery with 50 as well as taking 2 wickets, 2 catches and being involved in a run out, and Andre Russell took 4 wickets to go with his runs. The award went to Nicol, but it was a game with at least 3 outstanding performances. (Southee and Boult both bowled sensationally, without getting the same reward)

West Indies have now lost 4 of the 5 matches they have played at this ground. They will need a significant improvement to improve that record in matches 4 or 5.