The best ODI batsmen

Continued from What the best ODI batsmen have…

This post is one in a series called ‘The Sachin Tendulkar Debate’

We started with a set of six batsmen to compare on previously defined parameters. Their career highlights:

Batsman	ODI’s	Runs	Average	Strike Rate
Adam Gilchrist	287	9619	35.89	96.94
Brian Lara	298	10353	40.44	79.58
Hershelle Gibbs	244	8038	36.37	83.32
Kevin Pietersen	90	3109	47.83	87.60
Ricky Ponting	311	11251	42.13	80.14
Virender Sehwag	198	6378	34.47	101.83
Sachin Tendulkar	425	16684	44.37	85.66

Why not Mohammed Yousuf, or Michael Bevan, or Saurav Ganguly, or scores of other very good ODI batsmen? Because, these names came readily to mind, and combined, they should offer a reasonable comparison against the performance of the focus of this debate, Sachin Tendulkar.

Consistency – Removing the effect of Minnow-bashing

The first test was to remove all those runs scored against minnows to see whose averages get impacted the most. For the purpose of this discussion, the term ‘minnows’ includes the teams that suck more consistently, than others. The list includes: Bangladesh, Bermuda, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Kenya, Namibia, Netherlands, Scotland, UAE, USA, Zimbabwe.

Batsman	Adjusted Average	Impact to Career Average
Pietersen	47.72	-0.24%
Tendulkar	42.43	-4.37%
Ponting	41.53	-1.43%
Lara	39.54	-2.23%
Gilchrist	34.99	-2.50%
Sehwag	33.91	-1.63%
Gibbs	33.68	-7.38%

Bad news for Tendulkar fans right off the bat. Barring Gibbs, SRT’s average takes the biggest hit when the free runs against the lesser teams are excluded. Predictably, all the batsmen in this consideration did a little better against the minnows, however, Pietersen’s phenomenal average shows an imperceptible change while Gibbs loses the most. Note that the adjusted average still shows that SRT has scored (over his entire career) nearly 3 runs per game more than Lara, 7 runs a game more than Gilchrist and 8.5 runs per game more than Sehwag.

Performance against the top sides

Against	Australia	England	India	New Zealand	Pakistan	South Africa	Sri Lanka	West Indies	Variation
Ponting		-1.89	-5.84	0.19	-8.28	-1.64	-2.61	6.94	4.82
Tendulkar	3.84	-0.71		3.62	-2.75	-10.60	0.64	11.74	6.85
Gilchrist		-2.05	1.87	-3.04	-1.90	-6.82	15.38	-4.37	7.33
Lara	-0.01	-8.96	-6.91	11.32	3.66	-3.68	9.25		7.80
Gibbs	-3.59	-4.49	13.13	3.53	-5.35		-9.80	9.28	8.44
Sehwag	-11.36	3.52		17.49	2.69	-7.55	-1.21	-6.72	9.63
Pietersen	8.28		2.42	-11.92	-14.72	50.95	-15.34	-8.72	23.53

The table above shows difference between the adjusted career average and average against each team. The negative numbers in red show opposition against whom the batsman scored lower than his career average. The right-most column titled ‘Variation’ is a measure of the volatility in the performance of a batsman against the various teams. Lower the variation, better the batsman. The assumption here is that the best batsmen shouldn’t have glaring weaknesses against any teams.

As expected, all batsmen have their favourites and their bugbears, some of them surprising. For example, Gilchrist seemed to have more trouble against the South Africans while gorging on the Lankans. Pietersen on the other hand has an astronomical average against his countrymen while having significant trouble against Sri Lanka, Pakistan and New Zealand. Pietersen has the best average of the lot but he will need to get more consistent against teams other than South Africa and Australia to be considered a great player. Similarly, Sehwag will not do his talent justice if he keeps under-performing against the Australians.

The table also shows how arguments based on Tendulkar’s lower average against the South Africans are hollow because, apparently, every player has teams they’ve not quite been at their best against.

Going by variation, Ponting and Tendulkar are the most consistent irrespective of opposition.

Percentage of team runs

	Tendulkar	Ponting	Pietersen	Lara	Gibbs	Gilchrist	Sehwag
1990	12%			6%
1991	17%			12%
1992	20%			22%
1993	12%			26%
1994	21%			14%
1995	20%	13%		31%
1996	25%	14%		30%	12%	4%
1997	14%	36%		23%	8%	17%
1998	30%	21%		22%	4%	15%
1999	19%	18%		13%	18%	15%
2000	17%	16%		17%	15%	14%	8%
2001	32%	22%		21%	17%	18%	13%
2002	23%	18%		20%	17%	15%	18%
2003	26%	20%		21%	19%	16%	15%
2004	17%	16%	46%	17%	10%	18%	11%
2005	11%	18%	29%	13%	23%	14%	13%
2006	20%	15%	19%	15%	15%	16%	12%
2007	19%	31%	19%	18%	20%	14%	14%
2008	17%	10%	21%		13%	14%	21%
2009	20%	13%	10%		17%		22%

the cells in bold red italics are the highest for that year amongst the 7 batsmen considered here

the cells in bold black italics show contributions greater than 20%

The table shows the runs scored in each calendar year as a percentage of the average team score. Considering that the typical ODI lineup, there’ are usually 6 specialist batsmen with a couple of handy lower order hitters, anything approaching 20% of team runs would indicate more than a decent contribution. What surprised me was that Gilchrist and Gibbs rarely breached the 20% barrier (Gilchrist never and Gibbs twice) – An indicator of the relative freedom they had to blaze away to wrest the initiative early. After his initial years of carefree stroke-making, Sehwag will see more of the run-scoring load over the remainder of his career.

Ponting has had one of the most consistent careers with substantial contribution to the team cause almost all through except in the last 2 years.

The frequency of numbers in bold in the Tendulkar column underlines that he has been the bedrock of the Indian ODI innings for most of his career. His worst year without a doubt was 2005 but the last four suggest that there’s some gas left in the tank.

Appetite for the big runs

	Scores over 50 (excluding minnows)	Frequency of big scores
Pietersen	25	2.88
Tendulkar	113	3.17
Ponting	79	3.39
Lara	65	3.89
Gilchrist	61	4.02
Sehwag	37	4.51
Gibbs	43	4.58

Frequency of big scores = Number of games between big scores

The longevity of Tendulkar’s career has been used as an excuse by many an expert as the sole explanation for the mountains of runs scored. The table shows scores over 50 against quality opposition. Only Pietersen, who has played all of 90 ODIs scores big more often than Tendulkar.

As an aside, a look at the results of their big scores show that Pietersen’s efforts have been in vain 73% of the time while Lara ended up on the losing side after scoring over 50 nearly half the time.

This stat doesn’t show much except the mediocre ODI sides that Pietersen and Lara play in. The difference in Tendulkar and Sehwag’s ratio suggests an improvement in Indian sides over the last few years. For those who use difference in “average in games won” versus “average in games lost” as arguments are just plain silly.

Ability to dominate

	Strike Rate	Innings*
Sehwag	99.91%	167
Gilchrist	95.66%	241
Pietersen	87.34%	66
Tendulkar	84.39%	358
Ponting	80.40%	268
Gibbs	80.15%	197
Lara	77.46%	253

* innings exclude matches against Bangladesh, Bermuda, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Kenya, Namibia, Netherlands, Scotland, UAE, USA, Zimbabwe

Table shows comparison of strike rates (runs scored per 100 balls faced) and Sehwag and Gilchrist underline the sheer destructive capability they bring to their sides. Among the others there is not much to choose and considering the people Tendulkar scores faster than, there is not a lot anyone can detract from it all.

Big match temperament

The biggest drum his detractors like to bang on is that “Tendulkar is not a big-match player”. If only world cup finals count, then our sample set is all of 8 games amongst the seven batsmen here. So, looking at Finals, Semi-Finals & Quarter Finals together and then the big tournaments together, the numbers surprised even me:

Finals, Semi-Finals, Quarter Finals

	Innings	Runs	Average
Tendulkar	47	2137	50.88
Gibbs	12	465	42.27
Lara	25	861	37.43
Ponting	49	1613	36.66
Gilchrist	39	1277	34.51
Sehwag	18	515	32.19
Pietersen	1	6	6.00

I expected a marginally lower average in ‘big games’ for Tendulkar when I set out to do this exercise. What turned up however indicates even less substance to the argument about Tendulkar not performing in important games.

World Cups, ICC Champions Trophy, Australian Tri-Series

	Innings	Runs	Average
Pietersen	13	644	58.55
Tendulkar	101	4262	46.84
Ponting	170	6378	41.69
Gibbs	55	2050	41.00
Lara	93	3303	40.28
Sehwag	46	1616	36.73
Gilchrist	146	5032	35.69

Tendulkar’s world cup performance are legendary and so it’s no surprise to see him up there with over 5 runs a game over Ponting and over 10 runs a game over Gilchrist. What a lot of us do tend to remember are the blistering centuries Gilchrist scored in the world cup finals, what we don’t is that its the other batsmen that took Australia to those finals.

Summary

	Ponting	Gibbs	Lara	Sehwag	Gilchrist	Pietersen	Tendulkar
Consistency	3	7	4	6	5	1	2
Performance against top sides	1	5	4	6	3	7	2
Percentage of team runs	2	5	4	7	6	3	1
Appetite for big runs	3	7	4	6	5	1	2
Ability to dominate	5	6	7	1	2	3	4
Big Match Temperament (Deciders)	4	2	3	6	5	7	1
Big Tournament Temperament	3	4	5	6	7	1	2
TOTAL	21	36	31	38	33	23	14

numbers indicate relative ranking on that parameter. Top 3 have been highlighted

Top seven ODI batsmen:

1. Sachin Tendulkar
2. Ricky Ponting
3. Kevin Pietersen
4. Brian Lara
5. Adam Gilchrist
6. Hershelle Gibbs
7. Virender Sehwag

This is not a ranking system. Pietersen and Sehwag are only half-way into their careers and their numbers could move either way. The idea is that we should be able to swap the 6 names in this comparison and we can be fairly certain that the numbers in the table here wouldn’t change significantly (although I believe the numbers would tilt further in favour of Tendulkar).

Bottomline: Few batsmen even come close to Tendulkar’s performance in One Day Internationals

What the best ODI batsmen have…

Continuing from the last post, what makes a good ODI batsman?

Consistency: Yes, the high average is an obvious sign of a good player, but the quality of the runs matter. Shorn of the freebies collected against the likes of Kenya, UAE, Holland etc., do the player’s averages stay afloat or do they dip significantly. Consequently, how has he done against the best ODI teams of the past decade and a half? Australia and South Africa. All players have favourite venues and do better at some versus others, but the great ones manage to do a decent job irrespective of country, whether, home or foreign. Do dips in career averages in specific years matter? I don’t think so, every player I can think of has had the odd slow year.

Big Scoring Appetite: I consider this one more applicable to the limited overs version than test matches. Because big scores (100’s and 50’s) go a long way towards ensuring wins in ODIs. Brisk 30’s and 40’s are fine but the best players take control of the innings and set the tone, more often in the first innings. Sure, the top order has an inherent advantage on this count, but then aren’t many captains who hide their best players at numbers 5 or lower.

Ability to dominate: The big difference between tests and ODIs is the need for the best batsmen to stamp their authority on the opposition bowling sooner rather than later.  Not the kind of mayhem caused by frantic swinging in the death overs, but a mix of proper yet assertive cricket while taking on responsibility to build the team innings. Flogging medium-pace so-and-so’s from Kenya and UAE is one thing but destroying top class attacks with fearless strokeplay is a definite hallmark of the best ODI batsmen.

Big-match temperament: An extension of the quality of runs argument. Pre-20-20, ODIs were being scheduled on team stopovers on the way home from series. So runs scored in world cups, the tri-series in Australia, Champions trophy count for more than a 7 match bi-lateral series played between two bored and tired teams. So do runs scored in deciders like semi-finals and finals of these tournaments.

So, how does Sachin Tendulkar rate on these parameters? For that we compare him to some of the best going around. There could be debates about the individuals in the group, but it’s unlikely that anyone would disagree with the whole lot of players in the peerset.

Here’s my list: (in alphabetical order): Adam Gilchrist, Brian Lara, Hershelle Gibbs, Kevin Pietersen, Ricky Ponting & Virender Sehwag.

Coming up: The best ODI batsmen…

Back to ‘The Sachin Tendulkar Debate’

The debate – Rules of Engagement

What makes a good ODI batsman?

Is it one who takes the attack to the opposition in the first 15 overs? One who successfully finishes run chases? Has a high average from consistent performance? Has a high strike rate to indicate he makes good use of his time at the crease? What about those other more exotic statistics like percentage of wins when the batsman scores over fifty? And by extension, has a significantly lower average in games lost to indicate dependence by the team? Should a good ODI batsman have roughly the same average batting first as when batting second? Should he have a better average against the top sides and when playing away from home or should runs scored in big tournaments (like world cups) matter more? Test cricket would raise a different set of questions.

In a free-wheeling discussion to design the perfect batsman, the answers to almost all of them and another bunch of them would intuitively be ‘Yes’. This also explains why every observer can, by focusing on a specific subset of those questions, categorically justify rating one batsman better than another. And that’s my beef with most arguments that set out to prove that a batsman is in fact better or worse than another. The writers based on their own opinion, look for the statistics to support their argument all the while making it look like an unbiased assessment and a shrug of the shoulders as if to say “the numbers don’t lie”. And let’s not forget that often the same data can be looked at in different ways to draw opposing inferences.

So, given this series is already called ‘The Sachin Tendulkar debate’, isn’t it a foregone conclusion that a mountain of data will be presented to back up the credentials of the man? Not quite. Because the intent here is not to produce a ranking of the best batsmen with SRT on top. The intent is to answer the question: How good is Sachin Tendulkar, really?

And we’ll do that in three steps

Set out the top four-five attributes of top class ODI/Test batsman by asking “What are the hallmarks of top class performance in the respective format?”

Pick a set of contemporary batsmen based, not on statistics, but simply as those that come to mind as the most prolific over the last few years

To see how Tendulkar compares with these batsmen on those key attributes from step 1

The final objective is to attempt to structure a debate that is, at the very least, very subjective, and often, very emotional.

Next: What the best ODI batsmen have…

The Sachin Tendulkar Debate – Background

There are probably as many “top-10/20/100 best players” lists as there are cricket journalists. Over the years, forests have been leveled in order to present rigorously analytical points of view about why player A is better than player B because his average is higher on grounds beginning with the letter W while player C sucks because he only seems to score his runs on even dates in the southern hemisphere and none on the 13th.

On a significant percentage of those lists, for every Indian fan and many global ones, the contentions have centered around a certain Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar. Is he second only to Bradman or is he nothing more than “the greatest support act in Indian cricket” as described by holdingwilley?

With Tendulkar’s changes to his game over the last 3-4 seasons coinciding with the rise of the new Indian middle order, the number of articles/books/conversations questioning his utility have exploded. So, it was a pleasant (yet dubious) surprise when I was gifted a book in the opposing vein “If cricket is a religion, Sachin is God” written by Vijay Santhanam. The book attempts to statistically refute specific assertions by noted cricket journalists in the “Why my grandmother bats better than Sachin” club. Having pledged my (unquestioning) lifelong allegiance to the Tendulkar fan club sometime in the middle of the last decade, I was quite chuffed by the book. But I couldn’t help but question the process.

Relying on statistics to figure out who the great contemporary players are is like going indoors to log onto weather.com to see if it’s nice outside.

Just like we don’t necessarily need album sales information (classified by country of sale, time of the year and other miscellaneous information) to have an inkling that The Beatles, U2, Pink Floyd,  Queen, The Doors probably constitute some of the best rock bands to have filled arenas. Or that another completely sane music-lover might swear by the likes of Eagles, Led Zeppelin, Grateful Dead and co, it does not detract from the ‘greatness’ of the first group. in short, great players are observed and enjoyed, not ordered and re-ordered based on filters on spreadsheets or database queries. Well, atleast not completely.

So, I decided to take my own stab at weighing in on the discussion. To examine Sachin Tendulkar’s claim to greatness without any (significant) overt preconceived bias going either way. To look at career statistics, not by first deciding on the argument and then looking for supporting data, but to first lay out what might constitute superlative performance and then to look at Tendulkar’s numbers in relation to those of some of the others that we typically associate with being the best batsmen of this era. It’s only fair that there be separate discussions for Test Cricket and One Day Internationals.

Next: Rules of Engagement…

The Sachin Tendulkar Debate

With one of the more mediocre Ashes series in progress, I thought it was a good time to delve into that age-old (well, atleast 3-4 year old) debate about

How good is Sachin Tendulkar, really?

The intent is to explore the question from a variety of angles over a series of posts to make a statement one way or another.

I reckon the topic deserves a new page of its own. What’s your take? On ‘The Sachin Tendulkar Debate‘

Disclaimer:

Outside Edge! loves Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar. From the time he started smacking new ball bowlers over cover in New Zealand. From the time he went from ‘ridiculously talented prodigy’ to the batsman on whom India’s chances rested. From the time entire stadiums erupted at the sight of the MRF blade emerging from the pavilion. and the very same stadiums went silent and started emptying when one got through his defence.

Through the time he assumed captaincy of the weakest travellers in world cricket just before tours of South Africa and Australia. Through the time India were routed by pace and seam and his captaincy derided. Through the time he alone stood at the MCG while the others looked club class.

Through the time he cried in the dressing room in Chennai after taking his team to within touching distance of victory. Through the time other talents emerged and became ‘flavour of the season’ as he kept scoring his runs, albeit, more sedately. The time when India were blitzed in the world cup final that he took us to.

Till the time he keeps striding out to take that ‘just outside’ leg stump guard, to adjust various parts of his equipment to then look down the pitch towards the bowler. He will remain the batsman to have played for India and damn near the best batsman of all time to have played this fantastic sport.

Because, when Sachin bats, all else…is irrelevant

The perfect Pakistan – Sri Lanka final

My fellow bloggers; damiths and Q continue with their indepth analysis of strategy and tactics for the teams and what is likely to happen in the final today. All that while secretly crossing their fingers and promising their first-borns in exchange for fortuitous inside edges and erratic opposition bowlers spewing wides and no-balls, us neutral observers have the chance to think of what we’d like to see in the title-fight today.

Here’s how it needs to unfold…

1. Going by current form, Sri Lanka has more going for them which means we’d like them to begin with a handicap, albeit a small one based on statistics on tournament finals. So, Pakistan wins the toss and elects to bat.
2. Pakistan makes a statement and opens with Kamran Akmal and Abdul Razzaq. Kinda far-fetched but Pakistan will be aware of the need to play more fearless cricket to take the final
3. Angelo Mathews is then hit out of the attack by the above-mentioned duo to go to 30-odd by the 3rd over. (Now, I have nothing against the young all-rounder, but with three potential matchwinning bowlers in the ranks, us neutral observers don’t need Mathews to end the contest in the first twenty minutes.) Sangakarra goes to Malinga and one of his premier spinners who bring some sanity to proceedings and get one out. 40-odd for 1 by the 5th over.
4. Younus Khan walks in and strokes a couple of silken cover drives and settles into well-judged ones and twos. Game on! Sri Lanka’s bowlers hit back to take a wicket or two while Younus and Shoaib Malik play smart cricket to push the score along at a decent clip. 80-odd by 13th over.
5. Afridi walks out in the 15th over and along with the lower order sets up the game with a blistering attack to take Pakistan to 160 in their twenty overs. (fyi, Pakistan has won 17 of the 23 times he made 50+ in ODIs)
6. Sri Lanka know they have it all to do at this stage and set about the chase in earnest with Jayasurya and Dilshan. Dilshan, however, pays the price for some overconfidence and is dismissed early. 20/1  by the 3rd over.
7. Jayasurya however decides to remind everyone about which Sri Lankan opener teams have been really worried about for over a decade and puts on a ‘short-arm jab display’, especially against Umar Gul. 50/1 by the 5th over.
8. Pakistan needs some inspiration when Razzaq bowls a peach to take out Jayasurya and Mathews in quick succession. 60-odd for 3 by the 9th over.
9. Two of the most elegant batsmen in world cricket, Jayawardene and Sangakarra then set about the dual task of consolidation and maintaining the run rate while Younus rings in the changes. For a change, the Pakistan fielding holds up and doesn’t give any easy runs.
10. With 45 needed off the last five, Gul returns to take out Jayawardene’s leg stump. Sangakarra doesn’t relent and keeps peppering the boundaries…

Wouldn’t really matter who won from here, but a game decided on skill and temperament rather than bad luck and choking under pressure.

That’s the final I want.

Sri Lanka V Pakistan preview

Logic does not apply when the team under consideration is pakistan. cliches wouldn’t be called that if they didn’t come true every now and then. I’m just pissed I was too busy to blog all of yesterday. South africa had marched into the semifinals with hardly a close game while pakistan had sneaked in. And yet every instinct said it’d be the asian team. When afridi blew a kiss to kallis after swatting him for four, I think all of us knew what the result would be. Match practice? Preparation? Haha! Just plain unpredictable brilliance.

I had a conversation with a colleague remarking on the Pakistan game; “On their day they can destroy any team”. To this I responded, on their day, the West Indies can do the opposite, implode spectacularly. 3 wickets in over #1 to a medium-pace bowler who’s talent was to pitch it in the general direction of the stumps. If you’re going to be 3 wickets down before any of Malinga, Murali, Mendis have come on, you might have as well not turned up.

The two teams to have played the most exciting cricket are in the final.

Let’s do an indepth analysis:

Fielding: Sri Lanka

Batting: Sri Lanka

Bowling: Sri Lanka

So, Pakistan it is…

Super Eight Update

 

 

Click here for an updated round up of Super Eight games or here for the Group Stage

Super Eight Rules

• Points from the Group Stage do NOT carry over
• The top two in each group will be decided based on number of wins, Net Run Rate, wickets taken per balls bowled (in that order)
• If two teams are equal on all of the above, the winner of the head-to-head between the two will go through

Why India lost

With the ‘Dhoni-media’ standoffs, we can expect fullblown inquests into India’s exit coming up with some of the following reasons for India’s loss:

Reason #1: Dhoni – Choosing to field

Statistics and history suggest India do better batting first, especially in crunch games.

Wrong. The batting first theory holds true for ODIs, not for T20s. Given the absence of Sehwag and the lack of form for Gambhir, India could easily be 15/2 by over four, struggling to get to 140  and ending the game in the first 10 overs. The choice to bowl was logical given India’s bowlers are bad at defending middle-of-the-road totals.

Reason #2: Dhoni – Batting order

Sending in the untried Jadeja ahead of the power hitters lost the game for India.

Wrong. It was an unorthodox move, very much like promoting Yusuf Pathan in the 2007 finals. Playing as the extra batsman, he would’ve expected young Jadeja to have made a quick-fire Zero in the worst case or a 14-ball 25 in the best case to inject some momentum into the run-chase. Dhoni has been extremely lucky with past moves like these. That he kept swinging at everything and yet consumed 35 balls was plain unlucky.

Reason #3: Dhoni – Team Selection

Benching Pragyan Ojha in favour of Jadeja.

Wrong. Jadeja took 3 wickets for 26 runs. Whether Ojha would’ve done better is debatable. That Jadeja’s strange innings went some way to cost India the game is bad luck, not team selection.

Reason #4: Ravindra Jadeja

Killed it with his 25 off 35 balls.

Only partly correct. His innings did make it an impossible task but it’s hardly fair to rip him apart for it. He kept playing the big shots, just couldn’t deal with the length being bowled at him. He was hardly the only batsman to have trouble with the English strategy. He’ll play better innings, unless crucified for this loss.

Outside Edge! Reasons for India’s loss:

Primary Reason #1: Brilliant England

Since the 1996 world cup when they announced a separate ‘ODI team’ consisting of Mark Ealham, Adam Hollioake et al as frontline bowlers, it’s been hard to take English teams seriously in limited over tournaments. Their strategy to bounce out the Indian batsmen was positive, aggressive and hence commendable. I doubt that even they expected the extent of discomfort they would cause the top order. Full credit to Collingwood and his pace attack.

Corollary Reason #2: BCCI scheduling AND the Indian team

Zaheer Khan’s opening spell was decidedly medium-pace and lack of bite made life easy for Bopara and Pietersen. The Indian team has been on the road since late last year and most of this squad was part of the IPL and hence haven’t been home for most of this year. While Indian teams travel better than the likes of Harmison, it’s hard to believe that they were on full tanks of gas in this tournament. Not that the players are blameless but till such time as the BCCI keeps running Indian cricket like a sweatshop, the players will need to consider making themselves unavailable for some of the series.

Bottomline:

The team I support lost. But it happened in a manner I prefer way more than others. Instead of dinky medium pace and pseudo finger-spinners taking the pace off the ball and inducing skiers, the English pace attack pounded it in their own half, providing very few ‘driveable’ deliveries. I wouldn’t go as far to say that the batting as a whole was found out, but the awkward prods from Raina were a revelation after his bullying of all bowling attacks in the IPL.

To me yesterday’s game made the case for providing extra bounce in every cricket-worthy surface since it lets batsmen with the technique to score runs and gives something for the quick bowlers to look forward to.

Well played England.

India V England preview – It rests on Zak!

Typically, for India to win: Bat first, not lose more than the odd wicket in the first six overs, reach 120/3 by the 15th over and finish with a blaze to end with 185. Bring on the slow bowlers early, have the batsmen miscuing big hits, field competently to win by 10-15 runs.

For India to win today: The absence of Sehwag and the pressure of playing for their place in the tournament will be too great to allow free-stroking batting. The danger lies in losing an early wicket to then batten down the hatches to dawdle to reach 100 off 15 overs with a mini-collapse as panic sets in to manage a sub-150 score. Today, India needs to bowl first to whittle out top order wickets in the first spell, to have England at 60/5 by the 10th over to not let them get past 130. The chase would be far from a sure thing, but a couple of solid partnerships ending with a cameo or two would see them home.

In summary, If India bat first

IF after three overs: 25/0……THEN After 10 overs:  85/2…After 15 overs: 130/3…After 20 overs: 185/7

India win! (65%)

IF after three overs: 15/2……THEN After 10 overs: 58/3…After 15 overs:  83/5…After 20 overs: 135/9

India lose! (85%)

If India bowl first

IF after three overs, England: 20/2…THEN After 10 overs: 60/5…After 15 overs: 85/5…After 20 overs: 130 all out

India win! (50%)

If after three overs, England: 25/0…THEN After 10 overs: 85/1…After 15 overs: 125/2…After 20 overs: 185/5

India lose! (99.98%)

For India to do it today, requires Zaheer Khan to bowl the T20 spell of his career. He could call up Gul and Parnell for inspiration.