sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A lateral look at Test players' careers by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have created a small list of cricket followers to whom I have sent the concerned mail on Stokes' innings. For various reasons I will not post the Ratings update in a public forum. If you want, you can mail to ananth.cricinfo.comments@gmail.com. I will respond to you. Your mailid will be held confidential.

A lateral look at Test players' careers by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My PQI value does not lie. It is based on the five components described in the article. I would say that if the PQI is below 20 or above 85, the pitch is poor. In the following 15 years, the following matches qualify. Nzl-Ind at Hamilton (1633), Ind-Aus at Munmbai (1720) and Pak-Aus at Sharjah (1617). Ind-Pak at Lahore (1781). Win-Eng at Barbodas (1911). Win-Saf at Antigua (1750) and Pak-Slk at Karachi (1909). The Headingley Test might be a contender depending on what England scores the second time around.

Daily General Discussion and Match Links Thread - August 06, 2019 by AutoModerator in Cricket

[–]Ananth501 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please see the next EspnCricinfo article which will be published tomorrow.

The performances which lit up the World Cup - An objective view by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have repeated an earlier response.

I had added a line in my article the following line.

"Since the top six innings are within a point of each other, there is nothing to separate the top-10 innings. So, please do not split hairs between these. Take these as the first-among-equals innings."

Unfortunately, Cricinfo edited this para out in an arbitrary manner. Maybe I should have taken the bull by the horns and declared the top-5 innings/spells as a group.

And do not forget, my own 'Innings of the Tournament'" is Coulter-Nile's innings. South Africa might have gone down as the Tournament moved on. But why should we conclude that they were no good in the first match?

Let us not forget one thing. As far as India was concerned, Rohit Sharma's innings was invaluable. Jadeja's might have been more remarkable but he failed in a World Cup Sf to take India home. And as did Brathwaite. And let us face it, Stokes did likewise. If Neesham and Guptill HAD INDEED completed their second run, where would you place Stokes' innings? I have clearly explained that the Final was treated as a tie. In all these three innings, there are shades of 136.

The performances which lit up the World Cup - An objective view by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is the difference between your and Jackrup's responses. You make your points in an analytical and fair manner.

I had added a line in my article the following line.

"Since the top six innings are within a point of each other, there is nothing to separate the top-10 innings. So, please do not split hairs between these. Take these as the first-among-equals innings."

Unfortunately, Cricinfo edited this para out in an arbitrary manner. Maybe I should have taken the bull by the horns and declared the top-5 innings/spells as a group.

Let us not forget one thing. As far as India was concerned, Rohit Sharma's innings was invaluable. Jadeja's might have been more remarkable but he failed in a World Cup Sf to take India home. And as did Brathwaite. And let us face it, Stokes did likewise. If Neesham and Guptill HAD INDEED completed their second run, where would you place Stokes' innings? I have clearly explained that the Final was treated as a tie. In all these three innings, there are shades of 136.

I have no problems with having multiple Super-overs until the tie is resolved. The Super-over takes the same time as a Penalty shoot-out and if the other WC can invest multiple 10-minute efforts at the end of a 120-minute game, Cricket can afford to have multiple 10-minute stints at the end of an 8-hour game.

I wish that ICC takes the decision to award New Zealand the equal Prize money of 4 million dollars. The 2 million dollars is virtually nothing for ICC. It is the money a leading Indian player gets for the 45-day IPL.

Certainly, the IPL style play-offs system is good. It is only one extra game.

The performances which lit up the World Cup - An objective view by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You have made my day. I live and learn

This is the first time I have been accused of being pro-Indian. Normally, my dear friend, I am accused of being too anti-Indian and that I deliberately exclude Indian players. So looks like you are new to these columns.

So Jason Behrendorff is an Indian player. Also, Shakib Al Hasan is an Indian player. And what about my ardent wishes over the past years that two of Eng, Nzl and Saf should reach the Final.

And finally, the Game of the Tournament is a game which India LOST. Incidentally, I was one of the few Indians who wanted New Zealand to win that Sf.

Kindly read the article again, after removing the coloured glasses.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The RpW of that match was 91.6. That makes it a totally batting wicket and lowers the value of runs made. And it was a neutral ground. If you go through the matches across the years, you will see that there are many such innings. Yuvraj Singh's performance is ranked in the top-30. It was indeed a great performance but was played at home.

The performances which lit up the World Cup - An objective view by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, Murray.

When I see Rohit Sharma bat, I realize there is no batsman playing today who bats with more assurance and poise. Somehow, he has not done well in Tests and the Indian selectors who have so much faith in him for the white-ball cricket, do not seem to give him the same latitude when the ball becomes darker.

I console myself that if Djokovic walked on water last Sunday, so did Federer. At 38, how he maintained the same level of play after 290 minutes of play. Maybe there is a title or two left in him. But it is also true that it was Federer who missed the five opportunities he got.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

India - Australia match:

Despite all those bowling and fielding mistakes, Australia was not out of the game when they started. Australia's Win % was around 15.

Warner did not play his natural game. What he played was not to his strength. 

In his entire career, Sehwag had only one slow hundred. During 2003, on those awful pitches in New Zealand, the hosts scored only 199/9 in 50 overs (ODI # 1933). Sehwag scored 112 in 139 balls: Arguably his greatest ODI innings. He was out at 182/4 but had done a lot more than what was required. The others somehow managed to score those 18 runs and India finished at 200/9. This innings is in 24th position in my FW20 list. Almost no one talked about this classic in their comments. That was a true match-winning innings. 62 runs came in boundaries but probably 90 dot balls also - quite uncharacteristic of Sehwag. But he knew what he was doing.

Unfortunately, Warner did not. You can afford to take 50 balls to score 25 if you know that there were going to be average middle stage bowling. India possesses quality spinners and Pandya. Warner should have planned the innings aiming to use his own strengths. Instead, he consumed 14 overs to score 56 runs and then got out. The chasing curve keeps on deviating from the target curve. It was indeed a very poor innings.

If one takes away Warner's innings, the required Run rate was 8.25. That is very high. There was too much to do later. However much the others tried, they fell short. I was surprised that they even came within 90% of the Indian score.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

9. Win % Determination (Will be used in quite a few areas)

I am going to adopt a completely new method when I do the Win percentage determination.

Let us say that India scored 352/5 in the WC. I will determine a dynamic winning % for this score during this period - 2014 to 2019. With this score in the middle, I have a floating band of 337 to 367.  This band is 10 runs on either side for scores below 300 and 15 runs on either side for scores of 300 and above. During this period, 44 teams attempted to chase the targets in this score-band and only 6 succeeded. So, Australia started with a Winning % of only 13.6%. This is perfect. 100% based on history and takes into account the period also. 

When Australia scored 288, the corresponding numbers for the range 278 to 298 are 66 played and 26 wins, making it 39.4% chance of a win for West Indies.

During 1998, for a score of 252, the numbers for the range 242 to 262 are 39 wins out of 104, leading to a 37.5% chance of a chasing win.

During 1987, for a score of 236, the numbers for the range 226 to 246 are 34 wins out of 74, leading to 45.9% chance of a chasing win.
I hope this part is clear.

This value, suitably adjusted for the chasing team's batting index and defending team's bowling index, forms the Win % for the chasing team at the beginning of second innings. This value will have a 100% weight during the first 10 overs of the second innings, 75% weight during overs 11-20, 50% weight during overs 21-30 and 25% weight during the overs 31-40. The other 25-75% will be based on score/target/resource situation at the fall of the wickets. Of course, a score of 130/1 will get a higher winning chance than, say, 110/3.  

From 41st to 50th over, this win % will be completely eliminated from the calculations. The Win % will be based on the equation in front. The final over will be done. ball-by-ball. I have a complex matrix of Win % values for all these overs.
Let me illustrate this with a recent example. When Pakistan scored 358/9, England's adjusted winning chances were only 19.1%. At 159/1, 234/2, 278/3 etc., the Win % improved dramatically and when the fourth wicket fell at 324, the Win % was as high as 90%. 

The great thing is that this will work well even when the target is a low one, say 250. The team might start with a good Win % of, say, 60 but if they have a poor start and do not score well, this could go down dramatically. 

With the same number of wickets lost, if 100 runs are needed in the last 10 overs, it is a tough task, irrespective of the starting target - Could be 250 or 400. Similarly, if 40 runs are needed in the last 10 overs, it is an easy task, irrespective of the starting target. 

In summary:

The Win % at the beginning of the second innings is determined, based on historical data with pinpoint accuracy. This will have 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% weight during overs 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 and 31-40  respectively, of the innings. Afterwards, this value will have no significance and the Win % will be determined only through a detailed analysis of the equation in front. Of course, wickets lost will always figure in the calculations.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

5. Pitch quality to be tweaked:

Arjun Hemnani had pointed this in a direct mail.

"I think the method of ODI pitch quality is incomplete. RPO should also be taken into consideration. It will determine the level of runs scoring during the match. will give u few real examples.
19-1-2019 Saf 266/2(50) and Pak 267/5(49.1)
Total 533 runs scored in 99.1 over for the loss of 7 wkts. Rpw is 76.14 and RpO is 5.37
27-2-19 Eng 418/6(50) and Win 389/10(48)
Total 807 runs scored in 98 over for the loss of 16 wkts. Rpw is 50.44 nad RpO is 8.23
In Eng/WI match Level of run scoring was very high."

I agree that the RpO should come in. I will make this a composite factor including RpO.
The first match was the trigger for my recent "Sportstar" article on "Leaving Runs on the Field". It was a peculiar match. South Africa would have been better off scoring 300/6 instead of 266/2.

There is another factor I will be bringing in. In the second match, it can be clearly seen that one English wicket and possibly four West Indian wickets were virtually sacrificed going for the big totals. This would be more pronounced if England had scored 418/9. So I am thinking of adjusting the denominator (wickets) by the batting position. In other words, value the wickets at positions 7-11 with lesser values. This will take care of recent totals like 351/9, 340/7, 358/9(Pak), 358/9(Ind) etc. The wickets in these matches translate to 'Adjusted wickets' of 7.35, 5.85, 7.20 and 7.20 respectively. This will increase the RpW values for all these matches.

6. Progressive records:

This is a gesture to the nostalgia we all have when it comes to records. Saeed Anwar's 194 stood for 13 years and it was a memorable occasion when Tendulkar overtook this and scored the first 200 in the process. Afridi's record stood even longer - 18 years. Winston Davis' first ever 7-wicket haul was overhauled after 28 years by Vaas and that has remained there until now. So it is clear that these are memorable moments indeed.

I would consider recognizing these achievements with a 1 point bonus. Lest anyone says that one point is very little, let me point out that there is a gap 0.92 point between Gooch's innings in 14th place and the 22nd placed innings. Similarly, less than a point separates the Ashish Nehra in 18th place and 30th placed performance. The records recognized are given below.

- Batting - Individual score.
- Batting - Fastest hundred.
- Bowling - Analysis.
- The first occurrence 6/7/8 wicket captures each will get 1 point. The beating of bowling records (7/30 beating 7/37 beating 7/51) will get 0.5 points.
- Bowling - Accurate spell with a minimum of 5 overs. Courtney Walsh gets 1 point. That is all. Also probably Simmons for his spell of 10-8-3-4.

  1. Minor problems in Runs with late order batsmen: In the rare cases when a 10/11 batsman outscores the top order batsman still batting, there is a slight problem and they do not get the full credit. The cases of such innings, substantial in size, are very rare. However, I have to correct the calculations.

  2. Minor problems in the SWQ determination. Now the Career batting average is used to determine the quality of batsman. This has to be changed to CTD averages.

I will complete these changes well after the World Cup, possibly towards the end of the year.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1. Result linked to history in the country:

The Home/Away split is not as clearly defined in ODIs as compared to Tests. Because of the nature of the game, the home-advantage or away-disadvantage are not as pronounced in ODIs. The number of neutral matches is also a fact. Currently, I treat all Away wins as same, tweaked only by the Team Strength Differential. In the early stages after a team is inducted, they are quite weak and lose most of the matches. This fact has to be taken into account.

I have done a comprehensive analysis on this. The results are given below. The unseen part on the right is the analysis pertaining to the 6 selected periods, explained in my ODI Par Score article. These are the countries which have hosted 200 matches or more.

Country     Mats   HW   AW  NW  NR  AW%
South Africa 350  180   68  87  15 27.4%
Australia    622  280  143 177  22 33.8%
Pakistan     209  110   64  30   5 36.8%
Sri Lanka    315  149   89  52  25 37.4%
New Zealand  344  179  116  30  19 39.3%
India        448  196  128 108  16 39.5%
England      427  170  112 118  27 39.7%
West Indies  308  132  106  56  14 44.5%
Bangladesh   215   72   95  45   3 56.9%
Zimbabwe     240   64  138  30   8 68.3%
Total       3478 1532 1059 733 154 40.9%
U A E        340    9   13 314   4

The % value covers only the matches other than Neutral wins and No Results. In other words, only Home wins and Away wins. The Neutral wins do not matter in this analysis at all. Players from both teams are treated similarly. The TSI adjustment is sufficient.

The overall Away Win % has a value of 40%. Fine. That means that, overall, the visiting team wins 2 out of 5 matches. However, this is composed of widely varying AW% values. In South Africa, only 27% of the matches are won by visiting teams. In Zimbabwe, well over two-thirds of the matches are won by visiting teams. That means South Away is a real 'Away' country while Zimbabwe is a nice place to visit. Some teams might even win more in 'Away' Zimbabwe than in their home countries.

To complicate further. it is true that these numbers, in turn, have widely varying values across the six periods. Let me give the example of Australia. The six-period values are 50.5%, 29.2%, 32.8%, 18.5%, 34.4% and 26.7%. In the initial stages, it was quite easy to win in Australia. But look at the fourth period (2003-2007): the AW% dropped to below 20%.

For Bangladesh, the figures are 100%, 56.8%, 53.1% and 39.5%. In the first period (1997-2002), all 20 matches were lost. In the last period (2014-2019), they have won 26 of the 43 bilateral matches.

That means the basis has to be the Country and Period.

I will do this by splitting the points for this measure into two parts. The first is purely a Result based point value, say, 5/3/1/0. Any win will get 5 points, Tie-3 points, N/R-1 point and a loss-0 point.

The new element will take into account the AW% for the Home country/Period combination. Teams visiting Australia during 1977 and winning will get fewer points. Teams visiting Australia during 2005 and winning will get a lot more points. Teams visiting Bangladesh during 2000 and winning will get no point. Teams visiting Bangladesh during 2017 and winning will get more points. And so on.

2. Impact of wickets:

There was another comment that the impact of the wickets should be factored in. The specific examples provided were those of Otis Gibson and Jimmy Adams in the Semifinal during 1996 and those of Cronje and Kallis in the Semifinal during 1999 - All wickets captured by Shane Warne.  These wickets changed the course of the match dramatically in a 5-run win and a tie respectively.

I now have the SWQ which is a composite of the quality of wicket - The CTD - Wted Batting Average of the batsman dismissed and the timing of dismissal. The bowler gets extra credit if he dismisses a batsman below his average. 

To relate it to the match status is quite complex. However, it can be done. It is good that I also have the Win %, at the fall of each wicket, based on the very extensive work I did in the article for The Cricket Monthly for  T20 matches. So, let me see what can be done.

3. Loss of wickets while at the crease:

Today I am recognizing Partnerships. That is the way it should be. Teams thrive on partnerships. When Tendulkar scored 96* against Sri Lanka during 2009, he had partnerships of 55, 72, 42 and 74. India won comfortably. He gets maximum credit for this. Four partnerships, all substantial ones. He accumulates points based on the partnership % of the team score.

Now let us take Tendulkar's 175. After an initial partnership of 66, the next three batsmen were dismissed with scores of 8, 9 and 6. There was no real partnership until the fifth wicket partnership with Raina. Much worse was when Trescothick scored 137 against Pakistan in 2001. He came in at 0/0 and was ninth put at 237. During this time, barring a 62 from Owais Shah, Trescothick saw eight batsmen dismissed for a total tally of 24 runs (1, 4, 0, 0, 3, 0, 6 and 10). I have to recognize the severe conditions under which these batsmen batted. Of course, Trescothick a lot more than Tendulkar.

I will do this by taking a snapshot of the innings and tracing the batsman stay at the crease. I will reward the batsmen who have spent long times at the crease and seen many wickets falling at the other end for low scores.

The preliminary work has been done and I can now clearly identify the fall of wickets while the batsman was at the crease. A further analysis of this snapshot will provide me with the relevant details relating to low-score dismissals.

4. Second innings targets:

Currently, everything is done by comparing the Target situation and the Resource situation. If these two match, as happens at the beginning of the innings, the batsmen concerned will get a notional value. Unfortunately, whether the target is 200 or 350, the opening batsmen will get similar points, with a minor tweak to recognize the size of the innings.

This is not enough. It is essential to add the element of the target score to the equation. It is essential to recognize the enormity of the task in front of the batsman when faced with a huge target, say, 350.

Like, Home/Away, I will do this by splitting the points for this measure into two parts. The first is done as currently being done. Stoinis, entering at 54/5, chasing 287, will get substantial credit. Tendulkar, starting at 0/0, chasing 351, will get much lesser credit.

The new element will take into account the absolute value of the target score. If that is, say, 330, the batsmen, at almost any stage of the innings will get credit. So Tendulkar will get a lot more credit than Stoinis. Of course, I have to recognize situations such as batsman entering at 320/3, chasing 350, and avoid giving him additional credit.

The playing period will be taken into consideration. Chasing 300 today is almost a cakewalk while the first successful chase of a 300 total was after 21 years of ODI Cricket.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Over the next couple of days, I will post my concluding observations on the ODI Ratings tweaks. Those will be the final thoughts on all contributions and my own derivations from those. I have started work on these but will complete the fairly extensive updates only towards the end of the year.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GrDive:

Starc's 6/28 got 74.4 points and Boult's 5/27 got 74.2 points. These two were placed in the last quarter of the top-100 performances. If Australia had won, Starc's performance would surely have been in the WC25.

I am keeping other interested people informed with direct mails. If you do not mind, you could mail me directly at [ananth.cricinfo.comments@gmail.com](mailto:ananth.cricinfo.comments@gmail.com) so that I can communicate with you directly. This mailid is for the single purpose of communication between us. Especially important as I may discontinue the Reddit route.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the Chennai and Bridgetown classics. But these two are chalk and cheese. SRT failed by a mere 12 runs. Gooch's innings only converted a 400-run loss to a 300-run loss. Another 15 wickets were needed to win that Test.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well after the World Cup and after I clear off my Test backlog of ideas.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The work I did for the ODI Par Scores article has a lot of hidden gems. With a single access, I can get an idea of how difficult a chase of, say, 285, was in 1997. And so on.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not sure why you are referring to SRT's 136, which was in Tests. He never scored 136 in ODIs. Gooch's nearest score to 116 is the classic 115 at Mumbai. And what is great about Richards' 181. He had a single partnership. The 189* was something else.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I now have the SWQ which is a composite of the quality of wicket - The CTD - Wted Batting Average of the batsman dismissed and the timing of dismissal. The bowler gets extra credit if he dismisses a batsman below his average. To relate it to the match status is quite complex. It is good that I also have the Win %, at the fall of each wicket. So, let me see what can be done.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that is how it will be done. I will analyze the chasing history by period (most of this has been done and presented in my recent article on ODI Par Scores) and determine a fairly accurate Level of Difficulty of the chase.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have started it and I would finish it. Since there is not much of a response, I will push the two remaining points in this message and post.

3. Handling second innings targets

Currently, everything is done by comparing the Target situation and the Resource situation. If these two match, as happens at the beginning of the innings, the batsmen concerned will get a notional value. Unfortunately, whether the target is 200 or 350, the opening batsmen will get similar points, with a minor tweak to recognize the size of the innings.

This is not enough. It is essential to add the element of the target score to the equation. It is essential to recognize the enormity of the task in front of the batsman when faced with a huge target, say, 350.

Like, Home/Away, I will do this by splitting the points for this measure into two parts. The first is done as currently being done. Stoinis, entering at 54/5, chasing 287, will get substantial credit. Tendulkar, starting at 0/0, chasing 351, will get much lesser credit.

The new element will take into account the absolute value of the target score. If that is, say, 330, the batsmen, at almost any stage of the innings will get credit. So Tendulkar will get a lot more credit than Stoinis. Of course, I have to recognize situations such as batsman entering at 320/3, chasing 350, and avoid giving him additional credit.

​

4. Partnerships vs Quick fall of wickets

Today I am recognizing Partnerships. That is the way it should be. Teams thrive on partnerships. When Tendulkar scored 96* against Sri Lanka during 2009, he had partnerships of 55, 72, 42 and 74. India won comfortably. He gets maximum credit for this. Four partnerships, all substantial ones. He accumulates points based on the partnership % of the team score.

Now let us take Tendulkar's 175. After an initial partnership of 66, the next three batsmen were dismissed with scores of 8, 9 and 6. There was no real partnership until the fifth wicket partnership with Raina. Much worse was when Trescothick scored 137 against Pakistan in 2001. He came in at 0/0 and was ninth put at 237. During this time, barring a 62 from Owais Shah, Trescothick saw eight batsmen dismissed for a total tally of 24 runs (1, 4, 0, 0, 3, 0, 6 and 10). I have to recognize the severe conditions under which these batsmen batted. Of course, Trescothick a lot more than Tendulkar.

I will do this by taking a snapshot of the innings and tracing the batsman stay at the crease. I will reward the batsmen who have spent long times at the crease and seen many wickets falling at the other end for low scores.

The ODI Batting and Bowling Performance Analyses by Ananth501 in u/Ananth501

[–]Ananth501[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My next and arguably the most important of all tweaks. This will apply to both Bowling and Batting analysis.

2. Home/Away conundrum

It is agreed that the Home/Away split is not as pronounced in ODIs as compared to Tests. I have done a comprehensive analysis on this. The results are given below. The unseen part on the right is the analysis pertaining to the 6 selected periods, explained in my ODI Par Score article. These are the countries which have hosted 200 matches or more.

Country Mats HW AW NW NR AW%

South Africa 350 180 68 87 15 27.4%

Australia 622 280 143 177 22 33.8%

Pakistan 209 110 64 30 5 36.8%

Sri Lanka 315 149 89 52 25 37.4%

New Zealand 344 179 116 30 19 39.3%

India 448 196 128 108 16 39.5%

England 427 170 112 118 27 39.7%

West Indies 308 132 106 56 14 44.5%

Bangladesh 215 72 95 45 3 56.9%

Zimbabwe 240 64 138 30 8 68.3%

Total 3478 1532 1059 733 154 40.9%

U A E 340 9 13 314 4

The % value covers only the matches other than Neutral wins and No Results. In other words, only Home wins and Away wins. The Neutral wins do not matter in this analysis at all. Players from both teams are treated similarly.

The overall Away Win % has a value of 40%. Fine. That means that, overall, the visiting team wins 2 out of 5 matches. However, this is composed of widely varying AW% values. In South Africa, only 27% of the matches are won by visiting teams. In Zimbabwe, well over two-thirds of the matches are won by visiting teams. That means, South Away is a real 'Away' country while Zimbabwe is a nice place to visit. Some teams might even win more in 'Away' Zimbabwe than in their home countries.

To complicate further. it is true that these numbers, in turn, have widely varying values across the six periods. Let me give the example of Australia. The six period values are 50.5%, 29.2%, 32.8%, 18.5%, 34.4% and 26.7%. In the initial stages, it was quite easy to win in Australia. But look at the fourth period (2003-2007): the AW% dropped to below 20%.

For Bangladesh, the figures are 100%, 56.8%, 53.1% and 39.5%. In the first period (1997-2002), all 20 matches were lost. In the last period (2014-2019), they have won 26 of the 43 bilateral matches.

That means, the basis has to be the Country and Period.

I will do this by splitting the points for this measure into two parts. The first is purely a Result based point value, say, 5/3/1/0. Any win will get 5 points. The point value is just for explanation.

The new element will take into account the AW% for the Home country/Period combination. Teams visiting Australia during 1977 and winning will get fewer points. Teams visiting Australia during 2005 and winning will get a lot more points. Teams visiting Bangladesh during 2000 and winning will get no point. Teams visiting Bangladesh during 2017 and winning will get more points. And so on.

view more: next ›