2015 World Cup stats analysis
Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:38 pm
With the group stage completed, here's how the stats shape up. World Cups are perhaps the best way to compare teams as they all play in similar if not identical conditions against the same opponents. There is also the pressure that comes with a global ICC event in front of the largest audience cricket will ever get.
Seam Attacks for Each Team
The seam attacks are rated according to a simple formula: 100 * [wickets per match/(bowling econ^3 * bowling average)].
The bowling average is actually the normalized average, with the team with a median average given a normalized average of 1. Cubing the economy rate, gives more weight to tidy attacks, as everyone will agree chasing a total of 200-2 from 50 overs is easier than chasing 350 all out.
Here is how the final rankings turned out:
12.182 - India
11.179 - Australia
9.048 - South Africa
7.234 - New Zealand
4.034 - Pakistan
3.593 - West Indies
3.192 - Afghanistan
2.884 - Sri Lanka
2.047 - Scotland
1.934 - England
1.806 - Bangladesh
1.565 - United Arab Emirates
0.772 - Ireland
0.648 - Zimbabwe
So jaybro, you were right BD were nowhere near having a top 6 seam attack at the World Cup. However, we were very close to England who nearly everyone predicted as having a top 5 seam attack. I know you hadn't rated Taskin as anything special even though there aren't many teenage bowlers averaging 140 kph, but he took 6 wickets @ 42.66 with 6.24 econ and often bowled 48th, 50th overs at the death. He created at least 4 good chances (Shenwari fended a nasty bouncer that a keeper taller than Mushy could have taken, Shakib dropping a somewhat tough one but the ball popped out at the last second, Taskin himself dropped a sitter of Sanga off his own bowling - although the catch was a sitter, him getting to it on his follow throw required immense athleticism, Tamim dropped Woakes which was a total sitter and almost lost us the game). I think those 4 drops cost him 3 runs, and so he could have easily averaged 25.30 with 10 wickets to his name. Very impressive for the second youngest player at the world cup - and prolly the absolute youngest cuz Usman Ghani is most likely not 18.
Overall Team Performance
Basically took the ratio of each teams batting average and run rate to their bowling average and economy rate. No real surprises here, the 8 quarterfinalists all take the top 8 spots.
3.277 - India
2.698 - South Africa
2.467 - New Zealand
2.466 - Australia
1.571 - Sri Lanka
1.196 - West Indies
1.046 - Pakistan
0.969 - Bangladesh
0.763 - England
0.523 - Ireland
0.487 - Zimbabwe
0.436 - Scotland
0.348 - UAE
0.343 - Afghanistan
India were quite beastly as they outperformed even Australia and New Zealand. Credit to their bowlers for taking all 60 available wickets.
Now you might think BD escaped by having a washout against Australia and its probably true. Although NZ were just as good and we really pushed them to the max on perhaps the most seaming/swinging wicket in the tournament. But assuming Australia racked up 400-5 against us and bundled us out for 150, we'd only slip to 9th below England, and still be far ahead of Ireland with a ratio of 0.666. And thats the worst case scenario.
I had said in the OP of the other thread that BD's best bet was to beat either of England or SL and progress, and thats what happened. Even the SL game, we played at 10% of our potential and SL played at about 75% and they only won by 90 odd runs. The challenge of course is for BD to consistently play at 75%.
As for Zimbabwe, they were close to keeping up with Ireland, but the concern is what happens when you take Taylor and his two World Cup centuries out? The reality is Zimbabwe cannot retain their talent, and without that talent, Zimbabwe will struggle to keep pace even with Associates.
Ireland will be kicking themselves for not qualifying and have only themselves to blame, they kept picking the same shitty seamers when they had young guys like Chase and Young on the bench.
Afghanistan are Bangladesh lite. Lots of big talk from their players and fans, and very little to back that up. Finished as the statistically worst team of the tournament despite the win against Scotland. They have a long ways to go despite having the most talent amongst the Associates.
Seam Attacks for Each Team
The seam attacks are rated according to a simple formula: 100 * [wickets per match/(bowling econ^3 * bowling average)].
The bowling average is actually the normalized average, with the team with a median average given a normalized average of 1. Cubing the economy rate, gives more weight to tidy attacks, as everyone will agree chasing a total of 200-2 from 50 overs is easier than chasing 350 all out.
Here is how the final rankings turned out:
12.182 - India
11.179 - Australia
9.048 - South Africa
7.234 - New Zealand
4.034 - Pakistan
3.593 - West Indies
3.192 - Afghanistan
2.884 - Sri Lanka
2.047 - Scotland
1.934 - England
1.806 - Bangladesh
1.565 - United Arab Emirates
0.772 - Ireland
0.648 - Zimbabwe
So jaybro, you were right BD were nowhere near having a top 6 seam attack at the World Cup. However, we were very close to England who nearly everyone predicted as having a top 5 seam attack. I know you hadn't rated Taskin as anything special even though there aren't many teenage bowlers averaging 140 kph, but he took 6 wickets @ 42.66 with 6.24 econ and often bowled 48th, 50th overs at the death. He created at least 4 good chances (Shenwari fended a nasty bouncer that a keeper taller than Mushy could have taken, Shakib dropping a somewhat tough one but the ball popped out at the last second, Taskin himself dropped a sitter of Sanga off his own bowling - although the catch was a sitter, him getting to it on his follow throw required immense athleticism, Tamim dropped Woakes which was a total sitter and almost lost us the game). I think those 4 drops cost him 3 runs, and so he could have easily averaged 25.30 with 10 wickets to his name. Very impressive for the second youngest player at the world cup - and prolly the absolute youngest cuz Usman Ghani is most likely not 18.
Overall Team Performance
Basically took the ratio of each teams batting average and run rate to their bowling average and economy rate. No real surprises here, the 8 quarterfinalists all take the top 8 spots.
3.277 - India
2.698 - South Africa
2.467 - New Zealand
2.466 - Australia
1.571 - Sri Lanka
1.196 - West Indies
1.046 - Pakistan
0.969 - Bangladesh
0.763 - England
0.523 - Ireland
0.487 - Zimbabwe
0.436 - Scotland
0.348 - UAE
0.343 - Afghanistan
India were quite beastly as they outperformed even Australia and New Zealand. Credit to their bowlers for taking all 60 available wickets.
Now you might think BD escaped by having a washout against Australia and its probably true. Although NZ were just as good and we really pushed them to the max on perhaps the most seaming/swinging wicket in the tournament. But assuming Australia racked up 400-5 against us and bundled us out for 150, we'd only slip to 9th below England, and still be far ahead of Ireland with a ratio of 0.666. And thats the worst case scenario.
I had said in the OP of the other thread that BD's best bet was to beat either of England or SL and progress, and thats what happened. Even the SL game, we played at 10% of our potential and SL played at about 75% and they only won by 90 odd runs. The challenge of course is for BD to consistently play at 75%.
As for Zimbabwe, they were close to keeping up with Ireland, but the concern is what happens when you take Taylor and his two World Cup centuries out? The reality is Zimbabwe cannot retain their talent, and without that talent, Zimbabwe will struggle to keep pace even with Associates.
Ireland will be kicking themselves for not qualifying and have only themselves to blame, they kept picking the same shitty seamers when they had young guys like Chase and Young on the bench.
Afghanistan are Bangladesh lite. Lots of big talk from their players and fans, and very little to back that up. Finished as the statistically worst team of the tournament despite the win against Scotland. They have a long ways to go despite having the most talent amongst the Associates.