Let's be honest, the ICC's teams of the decade was a wee bit rubbish. Plenty have mentioned this on here, discussing it from a number of fronts. Personally, the fact that they picked a 'keeper' who didn't keep once in the decade says it all, but I figured I'd go over another way of picking such a team, just starting from a method and running with it.
Now, before I go any further, I would add that personally, the decade ended at the end of 2019. This is entirely a point about conventions, but one I feel should be noted before moving on to analyse this. I note this, in part, because I already gave my team of the decade last year, though by a slightly different method. So, what are these conventions? Well, as most would know, the Gregorian Calendar starts form 1 AD, so when noting centuries, they start from a year ending with 1, and end with a year ending 0, eg:

• 1st Century: 1 - 100
• 2nd Century: 101-200
• 19th Century: 1801-1900
• 20th Century: 1901-2000
• 21st Century: 2001-2100

It was also the point of contention for a bunch of people, who didn't like parties, who questioned whether 31 December 1999 was end the of the Millennium or not. Now, many would say 'who cares', and personally I agree, it's just a point about convention. That brings us perfectly to the point of decades though. There are two standard conventions:
1st: From 0-9, with decades labelled as 'the eighties' or '80s', the nineties' or '90s', etc. This aligns with how the decades are written, ie all years that start with an 8 are the 80s.
2nd: From 1-10, with decades labelled as '9th decade of the 20th century', '10th decade of the 20th century', etc. This aligns with how centuries are labelled.
Now, the second is very uncommon, and research on usage in the English speaking World tends to show that the first is overwhelmingly more common. Ask yourself, have you heard of 90s fashion, or fashion from the 10th decade? If you're in the later group, congrats, the ICC agrees with you.
Again, irrelevant, but to me it just seems odd to label the end of the decade as being now, but hey, the ICC can go against conventions if they wish. It's not really a mistake by them, but it really does set the stage for what they did.
Now, looking deeper, their convention is weirder than it first seems. The ICC lists Smith as having 7,040 runs in 69 Tests, and Kohli as having 20,396 in all international cricket. Now, the Smith figure confirms the December tests are not included, and this is also shown in the Kohli figure, which should be 20,781. The figure appears to be limited to prior to the current season, ie 2020/21, but starts with the beginning of 2011 as a year, not the 2010/11 season or the 2011. This means they've used a weird mixed convention, likely so they had time to consider things. Still, this is quite frankly just ridiculous, and I will be using figure current up to the end of the Test between New Zealand and Pakistan. This does mean that the period used by me is slightly different to the ICC's, but the ICC's period is just so silly that I won't be using it.
Anyhow, into methodology. I'll be using similar methods to my previous post. You can read that if you want a full rundown, but now the range is 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2020 (there is no international cricket tomorrow). The team will be, as before:

• 5 × Batsmen
• 1 × Allrounder
• 1 × Wicketkeeper batsman†
• 4 × Bowlers

There will be no preference towards bowling or batting allrounders, nor will there be a preference to style of bowling.
Unlike last time, I will not be providing a breakdown by number and fraction of matches played, etc, instead opting for one team, ICC style. The only requirement for consideration is at least 10 Tests played, with the issue of small sample size dealt with more directly. To achieve this, I'll be using a similar manner to this post, where uncertainty in averages will be considered, as well as what the 'average player' achieves. This will gives us a kind of 'Bayesian rating', which in effect tells us the rating for that skill that we can be confident of, given the amount of data we have. That is, we'll be using Bayesian inference to convert the average we have, to the certainty given by the sample size, to see how good we can be confident they are. The 'average player' will be the average player for that skill set, this being batting in the top 6 for batters, and top 4 for bowlers, with an additional requirement of bowling at least 1 innings per match. All roles for batting and bowling are collapsed into one for the calculations themselves, ie openers, number 3, all rounder batting etc will all use the same average as part of the prior. All rounders and wicket keepers will follow their own ratings, and this will be discussed later.
What's more, I'll 'cheat' a bit with the uncertainties. For batsmen, it will be their batting average divided by the square root of dismissals. This works as the standard deviation of batting scores is approximately the average (within about 5-10% for virtually all players with 40+ innings); the impact of this difference is very small in almost all cases. For bowlers, the same will be done for average, while the uncertainty for WPM is estimated from 0.6×WPM divided by the square root of wickets taken. This is being used for keeping dismissals per match as well. This works about as well as the estimate for uncertainty of averages, though the reasons why this is the case is unknown to me at this time. Figuring out the reasons why might be an interesting investigation in and of itself, though I'd suspect more niche.
In terms of actual ratings, for batsmen, they will be rated by batting average, and selection will be broken into several groups, including openers, the number 3, and 2 middle order batsmen. Openers will only be compared in terms of statistics while opening, with the same going for the number 3. The other two positions will consider batting across any and all positions, ie openers and number 3 are deemed specialists, while 4-5 are not.
For bowlers, I'll be using a rating based on two metrics, the bowling average and wickets per match. That is, bowlers will be valued for both their contribution to wicket taking, and taking wickets cheaply. This is combined with a geometric mean of WPM and 1/average, and in effect includes economy and SR as part of the definition. Bowlers will be selected as either seamers or spinners, and the best 3 seamers and best spinner will be selected for the side.
As to allrounders, the geometric mean of batting and bowling ratings will be used, and the best allrounder by this will be added to the side. In order to generate a usable definition of the 'average allrounder', statistics only from players who have batted in the top 8 in at least 10 matches, and bowling at least 1 innings per match played, will be considered. This said, their full records are considered the ratings themselves.
For wicket keepers, I'll be using the disgusting metric from this post, just so it's not purely about batting average. This is just the geometric mean of batting average and dismissals per match. It's sickening, but it will do for our purposes, and will at least give some value to keeping, though biased by the kinds of dismissals their team gets. The 'average player' used here will be the average of all eligible wicket keepers, this will smooth out players who dominate, or struggle, with the bat to some extent.
The final side will be put in order of batting average, highest to lowest, excluding the specialist positions of openers and number 3. Players will also be picked for roles in the following order:

1. Wicket Keepers
2. All Rounder
3. Opener
4. Number 3
5. Top Order Batsman
6. Bowler

ie if a player would make it on their batting or bowling alone, they will still go in as an allrounder first. The same with batsmen as keepers.
Anyhow, below are the results, top 10 for each role:

Openers

Player	Mat	Inns	Runs	Ave	B-Ave
DA Warner (AUS)	84	152	7205	49.69	47.60
AN Cook (ENG)	97	176	7482	44.54	43.61
Azhar Ali (PAK)	20	37	1556	45.76	42.03
CJL Rogers (AUS)	24	46	1996	44.36	41.81
TWM Latham (NZ)	54	94	3867	42.97	41.78
MA Agarwal (INDIA)	13	21	1005	47.86	41.67
CH Gayle (WI)	12	23	841	46.72	40.89
GC Smith (SA)	27	48	1843	41.89	40.25
D Elgar (SA)	56	100	3757	40.40	39.77
S Dhawan (INDIA)	34	58	2315	40.61	39.63

So, Warner and Cook are the picks here, and fairly decisively, as would be expected.

Number 3

Player	Match	Inns	Runs	Ave	B-Ave
KC Sangakkara (SL)	39	71	4068	61.64	51.84
KS Williamson (NZ)	72	124	6283	56.10	51.44
SPD Smith (AUS)	17	29	1744	67.08	46.99
CA Pujara (INDIA)	72	115	5314	48.31	46.06
HM Amla (SA)	61	100	4503	48.42	45.82
M Labuschagne (AUS)	10	17	1203	70.76	44.56
Azhar Ali (PAK)	56	95	4000	43.96	42.54
GS Ballance (ENG)	16	29	1254	46.44	41.80
IR Bell (ENG)	11	15	742	53.00	41.65
R Dravid (INDIA)	13	24	943	42.86	39.83

Williamson narrowly misses out to Sangakkara here, though given how good he was at 3, it's understandable. Smith sneakily into third is a surprise to me, but honestly, the field is pretty weak outside Sangakkara and Williamson.

Other Top Order

Player	Mat	Inns	Runs	Average	B-Ave
SPD Smith (AUS)	71	127	7050	64.09	56.00
KC Sangakkara (SL)	40	77	4156	57.72	50.52
V Kohli (INDIA)	87	147	7318	53.42	50.24
KS Williamson (NZ)	79	138	6665	53.32	49.93
S Chanderpaul (WI)	35	61	2804	60.96	49.40
Younis Khan (PAK)	53	97	4659	54.17	49.32
AB de Villiers (SA)	49	80	4063	54.17	48.83
MJ Clarke (AUS)	47	86	3946	51.92	47.57
DA Warner (AUS)	84	155	7244	48.95	47.05
Misbah-ul-Haq (PAK)	54	95	3994	49.93	46.48

So, Smith in comfortably, and Virat joins him with Sangakkara already in at 3. Williamson again misses out, and narrowly as before.

All Rounder

Player	Mat	Bat-A	WPM	Bowl-A	Rating	AllRond	B-AllRond
R Ashwin (INDIA)	73	27.48	5.137	25.22	0.4513	3.521	3.034
RA Jadeja (INDIA)	50	35.67	4.320	24.49	0.4200	3.871	2.996
Shakib Al Hasan (BDESH)	35	44.72	3.857	30.57	0.3552	3.985	2.977
BA Stokes (ENG)	67	37.85	2.358	31.41	0.2740	3.220	2.898
VD Philander (SA)	64	24.04	3.500	22.32	0.3960	3.085	2.814
JO Holder (WI)	45	32.05	2.578	27.95	0.3037	3.120	2.783
MA Starc (AUS)	59	22.16	4.271	26.75	0.3996	2.976	2.760
MM Ali (ENG)	60	28.98	3.017	36.60	0.2871	2.884	2.727
MG Johnson (AUS)	32	22.47	4.250	27.07	0.3963	2.984	2.700
CR Woakes (ENG)	38	27.52	2.947	29.30	0.3171	2.954	2.698

Lack of cricket over the period costs Shakib here, and honestly, I'd give it to Jadeja over Ashwin personally, but Ashwin it is. Stokes' rise in the last few years is notable however, but he remains some way behind the big 3 here. For those who demand a 4th seamer, he'd be the pick.

Wicket Keeper

Player	Mat	Inns	Ave	Dis	DPM	Rating	B-Rating
Q de Kock (SA)	46	77	40.31	206	4.478	13.435	11.98
AB de Villiers (SA)	21	33	63.06	83	3.952	15.788	11.80
BJ Watling (NZ)	64	97	40.17	249	3.891	12.501	11.69
JM Bairstow (ENG)	48	85	37.85	181	3.771	11.947	11.34
RR Pant (INDIA)	14	23	38.32	65	4.643	13.338	11.18
MJ Prior (ENG)	40	63	39.04	142	3.550	11.772	11.15
TD Paine (AUS)	29	45	31.39	134	4.621	12.043	11.13
Sarfaraz Ahmed (PAK)	48	84	37.34	163	3.396	11.260	10.95
LD Chandimal (SL)	24	43	41.08	72	3.000	11.101	10.77
MS Dhoni (INDIA)	37	63	34.84	126	3.405	10.892	10.72

So, the top three really stand out. AB's excellent cameo as a keeper stands out, but is too few matches to have high certainty. There's no surprise about the other two, but ultimately BJ's handy work this decade isn't enough to finish de Kock off, who is ultimately the pick here.

Seamers

Player	Mat	W	WPM	Ave	Rating	Bayes
PJ Cummins (AUS)	32	153	4.781	21.52	0.4714	0.4133
K Rabada (SA)	43	197	4.581	22.96	0.4467	0.4091
DW Steyn (SA)	48	207	4.313	22.56	0.4373	0.4056
JM Anderson (ENG)	100	395	3.950	24.33	0.4029	0.3918
JJ Bumrah (INDIA)	16	76	4.750	20.68	0.4792	0.3900
N Wagner (NZ)	51	219	4.294	26.33	0.4039	0.3848
MA Starc (AUS)	59	252	4.271	26.75	0.3996	0.3837
VD Philander (SA)	64	224	3.500	22.32	0.3960	0.3811
RJ Harris (AUS)	22	93	4.227	23.33	0.4256	0.3801
TG Southee (NZ)	65	271	4.169	27.00	0.3929	0.3798

So, the three to go through are Cummins, Rabada and Steyn. Anderson misses out, and fairly comfortably in the end, with Bumrah already challenging him due to a simply sublime start to his test career; those are crazy good numbers in your first 16 Tests. That said, Anderson would have missed out just going by average as well, of course. The ICC's own pick, Broad, is 11th on this list, and even that is largely just on the raw amount of cricket played decreasing uncertainty compared to those around him.

Spinners

Player	Mat	W	WPM	Ave	Rating	Bayes
R Ashwin (INDIA)	73	375	5.137	25.22	0.4513	0.4255
HMRKB Herath (SL)	69	355	5.145	26.30	0.4423	0.4180
Saeed Ajmal (PAK)	26	145	5.577	25.46	0.4680	0.4064
RA Jadeja (INDIA)	50	216	4.320	24.49	0.4200	0.3955
Yasir Shah (PAK)	43	227	5.279	30.85	0.4136	0.3899
PP Ojha (INDIA)	13	71	5.462	24.27	0.4744	0.3829
Abdur Rehman (PAK)	18	79	4.389	26.85	0.4043	0.3666
S Shillingford (WI)	11	56	5.091	29.00	0.4190	0.3624
NM Lyon (AUS)	98	394	4.020	31.64	0.3565	0.3527
Shakib Al Hasan (BDESH)	35	135	3.857	30.57	0.3552	0.3467

As would be expected, Ashwin would be the pick, but because he's in as the allrounder, Herath is in instead. There's a good argument that on balance it should be Ashwin in here, and Jadeja in as the allrounder, but I'll stick with the 'top of the list' method here. You could also argue Ashwin and Jadeja being in just to strengthen the batting, but again, we'll stick to that method.

Final XI

Position	Player	Bat Ave	DPM	WPM	Bowl Ave
1	Warner	49.69	NA	NA	NA
2	Cook	44.54	NA	NA	NA
3	Sangakkara	61.64	NA	NA	NA
4	Smith	64.09	NA	0.197	57.64
5	Kohli*	53.42	NA	0.000	NA
6	de Kock†	40.31	4.478	NA	NA
7	Ashwin	27.48	NA	5.137	25.22
8	Cummins	16.54	NA	4.781	21.52
9	Herath	14.92	NA	5.145	26.30
10	Steyn	13.53	NA	4.313	22.56
11	Rabada	11.43	NA	4.581	22.96

Please note that while the adjusted averages were used in the decision, the final list is just given with the raw figures for comparison. Virat was given the captaincy as I'm not convinced he'd play if he wasn't, even in a hypothetical best XI.
In any case, I feel that's a better take on this than the ICC's, particularly given the keeper has actually kept wicket this decade. The choice of time, and team, was poor by the ICC, but ultimately all this is just for a laugh anyhow. The figures themselves could also justify some different permutations, like AB in for de Kock, and Jadeja in for Herath if you want a more batting allrounder, with Ashwin playing primarily as a spinner. The latter may be useful, as that side has a very long tail. That said, they're notionally taking 24 wickets per match, so they'll be right. In all seriousness, it's an interesting question of what would happen if you put 5 players who are so dominant with the ball together in one side. Would their averages improve while the WPM decrease? That's an interesting investigation in and of itself.
In any case, while there are a few rough edges in this analysis, particularly around the keeper, hopefully it's a bit of food for thought. At the very least, it actually covers the 'decade', and has a keeper that kept this decade, so there's that.

Edit: Now that I reread it, that title's a bit poor. It should have been: A Statistical Analysis to Determine a Team of the "Decade" to Improve Upon the ICC's. Oh well, too late now.

As we approach the end of the first cycle of the new World Test Championship, I wanted to see what would happen if the world championship was decided on a challenge basis, as in combat sports, i.e. to be the champ, you have to beat the champ. I added a caveat: the world title would not be on the line in every series played by the champion. For a team to get a shot at the title, it would have to:

1. Tour the current champions as the #1 contender; or
2. Tour the current champions after beating them at home; or
3. Host the current champions after beating them away.

To be the #1 contender, a team would have to beat the current #1 contender away from home. A team does not lose its #1 contender spot if another team wins the title using rules 2 or 3. However, a team that has earned a title shot through rules 2 and 3 would lose the shot if the title changes hands. A drawn series favours the incumbent, whether champion or #1 contender.
After applying these rules to the existing history of Test cricket, I found that the lineal world championship has been contested 60 times by eight teams. In these posts, I will provide a brief history of these 60 series, spanning 138 years. By recounting this alternative history, I hope to demonstrate the soundness of this model of deciding the world Test champion and to revisit some of the most iconic series of all time, as well as to have something to do during the commercial breaks. (Parts 2, 3 and 4)
--
PART ONE: THE EARLY YEARS (1882-1905)
In the beginning, England played Australia, and that was that. The two sides played 30 Tests against each other over 15 years before South Africa played its first Test. As a result, in the first two decades of its existence, the world championship was exclusively contested by them. However, it wouldn't be too presumptuous to call their contests a world championship—after all, around this time, a couple of baseball leagues in the United States began calling their end-of-season showdown the World Series—and this exercise is basically an attempt to open up the Ashes structure to other teams. Aided by the vagaries of weather, uncovered pitches and playing conditions (three-day Tests in England; timeless Tests in Australia), they produced plenty of exciting cricket, made innovations to the game and drew crowds in the tens of thousands.
​
#1: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (1 TEST, 1882)
One of the most consequential Test matches ever played, the August 1882 Test between England and Australia at The Oval gave birth to the Ashes as well as the lineal world championship. Seven of the eight Tests played before this one had been won by the home team, and England was heavily favoured to beat the touring Aussies. ("It will be observed that in every instance the batting average of each member of the Australian team is lower than that of the English batsman placed opposite him, and that the bowling averages of the two men who had the largest share of the trundling for England are both better than either of those of the two bowlers who sent down the largest number of overs for Australia," Wisden noted.) Australia won the toss and were bowled out for 63 in 80 overs. In response, Frederick Spofforth took 7/46 to restrict England to 101 and then took 7/44 to defend a target of 85. Cue obituaries of English cricket, etc., as Australia were crowned the first ever world champions.
Result: Australia win by seven runs. Player of the Match: Frederick Spofforth (14/90)
​
#2: AUSTRALIA v ENGLAND (3 TESTS, 1882-83)
Australia's reign as world champion lasted just 155 days. In the first ever Ashes series, Ivo Bligh's England and Billy Murdoch's Australia won one each of the two games in Melbourne, setting up a decider at the SCG. After Bligh won the toss and elected to bat, a 116-run sixth-wicket partnership between Walter Read and Edmund Tylecote helped England put on 247, before a 94 by Alec Bannerman brought Australia to within 29 runs. A 7/44 by Spofforth in the second innings restricted England to 123, but nearly seventy overs of unchanged bowling by Fred Morley (2/34) and Dick Barlow (7/40) bowled Australia out for 83. The 69-run win, after which a group of Australian women burned a bail and presented the ashes to Bligh, began England's first reign as world champions.
(Note: These three Tests featured the Australian XI that had toured England in 1882. A fourth Test was played at Sydney featuring a "full-strength" Australian side, which Australia won. I'm following Wisden and Cricinfo's convention of treating the fourth Test as a separate series. If you want to consider this a 2-2 series, or a 2-1 Australia win considering the first match does not seem to have had Test status, Australia's reign as world champions lasts until 1884-85, when England won the five-Test series, 3-2.)
Result: England win, 2-1. Player of the Series: Walter Read (210 runs @ 42.00)
​
#3: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1884)
England's first defence of its world title began disastrously, as Frederick Spofforth (4/42) and Harry Boyle (6/42) dismissed the champions for 95 on the second day of the 1884 Ashes in Manchester. (There was no play on Day 1.) However, England fought back to restrict Australia to 182 and batted 130 overs to save the game on the third and final day.
In the second Test, the first ever played at Lord's, Ted Peate took 6/85 as England had Australia at 160/9 before a 69-run partnership between Tup Scott and Boyle. Allan Steel's 148 helped England take a 150-run lead the following day, and George Ulyett took 7/36 to set up an innings victory and retain the world title.
In the final Test at The Oval, centuries by Scott and Percy McDonnell, and 211 by Murdoch, forced the English captain, Lord Harris, to use 11 bowlers, including wicketkeeper Alfred Lyttelton, who ended up with 4/19 in 12 overs. However, declarations had not yet been invented, and Australia ended up batting 311 overs for its first-innings total of 551, before a 151-run ninth-wicket partnership between William Scotton and Walter Read saved the match.
Result: England retain, 1-0. Player of the Series: George Ulyett (11 wickets @ 17.63)
​
#4: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1886)
Having defeated Australia in the first ever five-Test Ashes series, in 1884-85, England were favourites to retain their world title a second time. In the Manchester Test, Australia was at 181/4 before losing six wickets for 24 runs. A Walter Read fifty helped England take a slight first-innings lead before Dick Barlow's 7/44 set up a four-wicket victory. A 164 by Arthur Shrewsbury and match figures of 11/74 by Johnny Briggs sealed the series with an innings victory at Lord's, while a 170 by WG Grace and 12/104 by George Lohmann completed the whitewash at The Oval.
Result: England retain, 3-0. Player of the Series: Arthur Shrewsbury (243 runs @ 60.75)
​
#5: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1888)
After weeks of bad weather, England's third title defence began on a Lord's wicket so bad "that many quite dispassionate judges thought the game would be so fluky, that victory would depend almost entirely upon success in the toss," according to Wisden. Australia won the toss and, "never attempting to show correct cricket," slogged their way to 116. Charlie Turner (5/27) and JJ Ferris (3/19) then combined to bowl England out for 53, before George Lohmann (4/33) and Bobby Peel (4/14) bundled Australia out for 60. Set a target of 124, England only managed half the runs as "Turner and Ferris carried everything before them."
The wicket at The Oval was much better for batting, but Australia had collapsed to 50/7 by lunch on Day 1. They were bowled out for 80, before England scored 317 and dismissed Australia for 100 to seal an innings victory in two days. More rain meant that the Old Trafford pitch was almost as bad as the one at Lord's, and Turner took 5/86 to restrict England to 172 in the first innings, but Peel's match figures of 11/68 helped dismiss Australia for 81 and 70 to seal the series.
Result: England retain, 2-1. Player of the Series: Bobby Peel (24 wickets @ 7.54)
​
#6: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1890)
Australia's fourth attempt to wrest away the world title began in attacking style, with John Lyons hitting 55 in the first 45 minutes of play on a slow pitch at Lord's. However, his dismissal, with the team's score at 66, triggered a collapse as the rest of the side fell for 66 additional runs. Lyons then took 5/30 to restrict England to 173, before scoring 33 in 25 minutes as Australia scored 176. Set a target of 136, the English captain, WG Grace, remained unbeaten at 75 to seal a seven-wicket win.
On another slow pitch at The Oval, Australia were bowled out for 92 within two and a half hours, with debutant Fred Martin taking 6/50. They fought back to bowl England out for 100, but only managed 102 in their second innings. Defending a target of 95, Australia had England at 32/4, but a 51-run partnership between Maurice Reed and James Cranston helped England eke out a two-wicket win to retain the world championship. The dead rubber at Manchester was abandoned without a ball being bowled.
Result: England retain, 2-0. Player of the Series: Fred Martin (12 wickets @ 8.50)
​
#7: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1893)
Yet another title defence began on a rain-affected Lord's pitch, but a century by Arthur Shrewsbury and 91 by Stanley Jackson took England to 334 on the first day. In response, Australia were at 7/2 and 75/5, before a century on debut by Harry Graham brought the challengers to within 65 runs of the English total. Shrewsbury and Billy Gunn then added 152 for the second wicket before seven wickets fell for 55 runs, but rain prevented play from resuming after lunch on Day 3 and the match was drawn.
A century by Jackson, and fifties by Shrewsbury, WG Grace, Andrew Stoddart, Albert Ward and Walter Read, took England to 483 in the first innings of the Oval Test, before Bill Lockwood (8/133) and Johnny Briggs (10/148) combined to bowl out Australia for 91 and 349, ensuring the world title would be retained. In the final Test at Manchester, a Gunn century in the first innings and a 78-run opening partnership between Grace and Stoddart in the second made sure the series victory was never really in doubt.
Result: England retain, 1-0. Player of the Series: Arthur Shrewsbury (284 runs @ 71.00)
​
#8: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (3 TESTS, 1896)
A record crowd of over thirty thousand gathered at Lord's for the first Test of England's sixth defence of the world championship, which began in controversial fashion as the MCC committee refused to pick KS Ranjitsinhji, despite Ranji becoming the first amateur to score a thousand runs in a season, because he was not born in England. (The decision was made by former England captain Lord Harris, who was born in Trinidad.) Tom Richardson (6/39) and George Lohmann (3/13) soon returned the attention to the cricket, skittling out Australia for just 53 on the first morning. England built up a lead of two hundred with the loss of just four wickets, but then lost their final six wickets for 36 runs. Australia then lost their final seven wickets for 64 runs and set England a modest target of 109. Overnight rain caused the pitch to deteriorate, but the champions managed a six-wicket win. The Lancashire committee was happy to name Ranji in the team for the Manchester Test, and the maharaja scored 62 and 154* in response to Australia's first-innings total of 412. However, in the absence of adequate support, England could only set a target of 125, which Richardson's 6/76 was unable to defend.
There was more controversy before the deciding Test at The Oval, as five professional cricketers demanded that their match fees be doubled from £10 to £20, causing the Surrey committee to consider dropping them. Ultimately, the rebellion was thwarted, and three of the five (barring Lohmann and Billy Gunn) were named in the side. Rain prevented much play on Day 1, with England reaching 69/1 at stumps, and Hugh Trumble's 6/59 forced a collapse of 67/9, as England finished on 145. Jack Hearne took 6/41 to secure a 26-run lead, but Trumble responded with 6/30 to bowl England out for 84. Chasing 111 to finally win back the world title, Australia promptly collapsed to 25/9, eventually being dismissed for 44, with Hearne taking 4/19 and Bobby Peel finishing with 6/23.
Result: England retain, 2-1. Player of the Series: Tom Richardson (24 wickets @ 18.29)
​
#9: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (5 TESTS, 1899)
It was seventh-time lucky for Australia as, after decisively beating England at home in the 1897-98 Ashes, they finally wrested away the world title in the first five-Test Ashes series on English soil. Ernie Jones's 5/88 earned Australia a 59-run first-innings lead in the first Test at Trent Bridge, and an 80 by Clem Hill helped set a target of 290. England were down to 19/4 on the final day, but a 93* by Ranjitsinhji saved the match. In the second Test, at Lord's, Jones took 7/88 to dismiss England for 206, before centuries by Hill and Victor Trumper took Australia to 421. Tom Hayward (77) and captain Archie MacLaren (88) tried to mount a fightback, but only two other English batsmen reached double figures and Australia was left with a target of just 26.
In the Headingley Test, Jack Worrall's attacking 76 on the first morning (the score was 95/4 when he departed) helped Australia reach 172 on a rain-affected pitch, and Hugh Trumble's 5/60 helped keep England's lead under fifty. Trumble then scored 56 to rescue Australia from 97/6, and rain prevented play on the final day. Then, after England amassed a 176-run first-innings lead in the fourth Test at Old Trafford, half-centuries by Worrall, Trumper and Monty Noble salvaged a draw.
England were 435/4 after the first day of the decisive Oval Test, thanks to centuries by openers Stanley Jackson and Hayward. However, despite Bill Lockwood's 7/71 in the first innings, Australia managed to bat for nearly 250 overs in their two innings, building on Syd Gregory's century in the first and half-centuries by the top three in the second, to save the match and finally end England's 16-year reign as world champions.
Result: Australia win, 1-0. Player of the Series: Ernie Jones (26 wickets @ 25.26)
​
#10: AUSTRALIA v ENGLAND (5 TESTS, 1901-02)
Australia went into the first defence of their second world title having won two of their previous three home series against England, and with all the players who had won the title in 1899 available for selection. However, after winning the toss at Sydney and promoting himself to opener, the English captain, Archie MacLaren, scored an attritional century to help his team reach 464. Debutant Sydney Barnes then took 5/65 to bowl Australia out for 168, before fellow debutant Len Braund took 5/61 to secure an innings victory.
MacLaren put Australia in to bat on a rain-affected pitch in Melbourne, and Barnes took 6/42 to bowl the champions out for 112. However, Monty Noble responded with 7/17 as England were dismissed for 61, and a 99 by Clem Hill was followed by a century by No. 10 Reggie Duff to set England a target of 405. Noble (6/60) and Hugh Trumble (4/49) then combined to dismiss England for 175 and square the series. The third Test at Adelaide lasted six days, with a century by Braund being neutralised by Clem Hill's 98 and Trumble's 6/74 to set Australia a target of 315. Barnes had injured his knee in the first innings, so could not bowl in the second, and Hill scored 97, his third ninety in a row, to set up a thrilling four-wicket win.
Needing to win both the remaining Tests to win back the world title, MacDonald scored 92 in the first innings of the fourth Test, again at the SCG, as England scored 317 and reduced Australia to 48/4. However, all the remaining Aussie batsmen got starts and clawed their team to 299, before Noble and Jack Saunders took fifers and dismissed England for 99 in the second innings, setting up a seven-wicket victory to retain the championship. The dead rubber at the MCG was a low-scoring affair, with Hill being the only batsman from either side to score a half-century and Noble taking 6/98 to defend a 211-run target and win the series 4-1.
Result: Australia retain, 4-1. Player of the Series: Monty Noble (32 wickets @ 19.00)
​
#11: AUSTRALIA v ENGLAND (5 TESTS, 1903-04)
Australia followed up its first title defence by winning the 1902 Ashes in England and beating South Africa on their maiden tour in 1902-03. In the first Test of their second defence, at the SCG, however, they were stopped in their tracks by a record-breaking debutant. After a Monty Noble century got Australia to 285, Tip Foster single-handedly overtook the Aussie total with 287, setting a record for the highest score by a visiting player in Australia that would stand for over a century, until Ross Taylor scored 290 in 2015. Trailing by 292, Australia were rescued by an unbeaten 185 by Victor Trumper, but England chased down the fairly straightforward target of 195 with five wickets in hand. A 7/56 by Wilfred Rhodes then gave England a 193-run first-innings lead in the Melbourne Test and, despite collapsing for 103 in the second innings, the challengers managed to win by 185 runs thanks to Rhodes's 8/68.
In the Adelaide Test, Australia hit back with its top four all crossing fifty, including a century by Trumper, in a first-innings total of 388, which was followed by a century by Syd Gregory in a second-innings total of 351 to set up a 216-run victory. However, Rhodes took 4/33 and Ted Arnold took 4/28 to give England a first-innings lead of 118 in the fourth Test at Sydney, before Bernard Bosanquet, the inventor of the googly, took 6/51 in the second innings to end Australia's second title reign. Australia won the final Test at the MCG, which started just two days after the fourth, by dismissing England for 61 and 101, but it was too little, too late.
Result: England win, 3-2. Player of the Series: Wilfred Rhodes (31 wickets @ 15.74)
​
#12: ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA (5 TESTS, 1905)
Frank Laver took 7/64 on a batting-friendly pitch at Nottingham to restrict England to 196 in the first Test of their title defence, but Victor Trumper injured his back and the English captain Stanley Jackson dismissed three members of the Australian middle order (two of whom had crossed fifty) in a single over, eventually taking 5/52 as Australia were bowled out for 221. Jackson then scored 82 in the second innings, assisting his predecessor as captain, Archie MacLaren (140), and John Tyldesley (61) to set Australia a target of 402. Bernard Bosanquet then took 8/107 as England won by 213 runs.
The next two Tests, at Lord's and Headingley, were drawn, with England in a commanding position in both. Rain prevented play on the final day at Lord's, with England ahead by 252 with five second-innings wickets left, while defensive leg-theory bowling by Warwick Armstrong (5/122 in 51 overs unchanged) and obdurate batting by Monty Noble (62 in 166 minutes) in the second innings at Leeds kept the series alive.
Australia needed to win the final two Tests to regain the world championship, but a century by Jackson put England in a commanding position at Manchester, with a first-innings total of 446. Walter Brearley then took 8/126 over two innings, as Australia were bowled out for 197 and 169. The final Test, at The Oval, was drawn. Both teams took advantage of favourable batting conditions, with CB Fry, Reggie Duff and Tyldesley all scoring centuries.
Result: England retain, 2-0. Player of the Series: Stanley Jackson (492 runs @ 70.28, 13 wickets @ 15.46)
--
CHAMPIONSHIP REIGNS
​

#	TEAM	DURATION (DAYS)	SUCCESSFUL DEFENCES
1	Australia	155	0
2	England	6,043	6
3	Australia (2)	1,661	1
4	England (2)	532*	1

​

Introduction

Hello again! Last time round, I did a post documenting some unusual batting feats (wow, it's been a while, hasn't it?), and it did much better than I expected it to. Of course, I couldn't then ignore the other side of the great game of cricket (despite my best efforts to delay this whole thing), so today, I'll be looking at some unusual fielding feats.
Ha, just kidding. I might actually do that at some point (sometime within the next millennium), but I'd imagine bowling would be more interesting for the majority of users here, so let's have a look at some of the most bizarre bowling stats and records in the history of international cricket. Note that this post got so long that I had to split it into three parts to fit everything in, so you're in for a wild ride.
​

They See Me Rollin', They Hatin'

Warning: The following section contains material which may trigger traumatic memories in Kiwi fans. If you happen to be unfortunate enough to be a New Zealand supporter then I'd strongly suggest skipping this section and distracting yourself with something less traumatic for the time being. Perhaps you could look at highlights of the 2015 World Cup Fi...actually, on second thoughts, maybe not. Instead, you could view the highlights of the 2019 World Cu...no, never mind. Well, there are always the highlights of the most recent T20I se...ah, perhaps not. You know, maybe just read some Jimmy Neesham tweets right now.
Anyway, here's a question: Why is bowling called bowling? Well, in Ye Olden Days, before the crash-bang-whollop of county cricket and the emergence of, ugh, professionals, the ball used to be rolled along the ground as in lawn bowls and tenpin bowling. Sometime around the 1760s, someone got the bright idea of pitching the ball to make things actually challenging for the batsman, which meant that cricket bats changed from being essentially hockey sticks (seriously, look up how bats used to look in the early eighteenth century) to something resembling modern cricket bats.
Some bowlers even became 'lob bowlers', which involved essentially lobbing the ball on the full to the batsman and relying on movement through the air to deceive him (kind of like in baseball, when you think about it). George Simpson-Hayward (who retired in 1914) is usually considered to be the last great 'lob bowler', though unlike most lob bowlers, he relied more on off-spin than on trajectory. That being said, Trevor Molony appears to be the last specialist underarm bowler in FC cricket (having played three first-class matches for Surrey in 1921), and is listed in Cricinfo as bowling 'right-arm slow (underarm)'.
However, in truth, underarm bowling had already been practically extinct for decades at that point. In the 1790s, owing to the fact that batsmen were playing underarm deliveries with too much ease, Tom Walker decided that he'd see more success with roundarm (i.e. bowling with the arm 90 degrees to the body). Unfortunately, the Batriarchy^TM was having none of it and the MCC banned roundarm bowling in 1816; however, bowlers, being as Ethical^TM as ever, simply ignored the directive and continued to bowl roundarm, and so the MCC was forced to cave in and legalise roundarm bowling in 1835 (roundarm has since largely gone extinct in the modern game, with the notable exception of Lasith Malinga).
To bowl underarm in the modern era would be truly unusual, and I think you know where this is going. For though Trevor Molony is considered to be the last true underarm bowler, he wouldn't be the last Trevor to bowl underarm. Yes, I am referring to the infamous 'underarm incident' of 1981 which took place in an ODI between Australia and New Zealand.
The Australian captain, Greg Chappell, realised going into the final over of the match that he had already used all of Dennis Lillee's allotted overs and was thus forced to rely on his brother, Trevor Chappell, to prevent New Zealand from scoring the 15 runs required for victory. Trevor didn't actually do too badly, conceding just eight runs from the first five balls of the over, leaving New Zealand needing to hit a six off the final ball of the over just to tie the match. What happened next has since gone down in cricket infamy.
Despite New Zealand needing a six just to tie, and despite the fact that the #10 batsman Brian McKechnie (who averaged 13.50 in ODIs) was on strike, Greg Chappell felt that it was too risky to allow Trevor to bowl a normal delivery. For context, underarm bowling had already been banned in the English game by this point, but it was still legal in international cricket provided that the umpires were notified prior to the delivery. The umpires were duly informed that the final ball would be bowled underarm, and so Trevor Chappell rolled the final delivery along the ground towards McKechnie, who could only block it and throw away his bat in disgust.
Obviously, there was a huge uproar over the fact that underarm bowling, while legal at the time, blatantly went against the spirit of the game, and so the ICC immediately banned underarm deliveries in international competition. Thus, Trevor Chappell holds the unusual distinction of being the last bowler to deliver a legal underarm delivery in international cricket (disappointingly, Cricinfo only lists him as bowling 'right-arm medium').
Personally, I think that the whole 'spirit of the game' thing is nonsense. Underarm bowling was completely legal at the time and should not have been shamed; this is just another attempt by the batgeoisie to use the 'spirit of the game' to maintain their dominance over the bowletarian class. All the pundits talk about the "unfair advantage" gained by the bowler as a result of underarm bowling but no-one talks about the unfair advantage gained by the batsman as a result of only having to face overarm and roundarm deliveries; in fact, it is the batsmen who are really going against the so-called 'spirit of the game'. Maybe New Zealand should have just learned to play underarm deliveries properly rather than whining about the 'spirit of the game' and changing the rules to maintain the Batriarchy^TM's oppression of honest and Ethical^TM bowlers.
​
^{yes i know that mankads and underarm deliveries aren't comparable because the former is the bowler removing an advantage from the batsman whereas the latter is the bowler providing an advantage to himself this is just a joke please don't downvote me for speaking out against daddy ashwin}
​
I think there are some important lessons to be gained from this story. The first is that the conflict over whether cricket should be more batsman-friendly or bowler-friendly has existed for centuries; these are not new questions by any means. You wanna know why the LBW law is the way that it is? It's because every other iteration was criticised for being either too batsman-friendly or too bowler-friendly. I might do an entire post on that particular topic in the future, but the point is that even if the present mankad debate is resolved in one side's favour, there will be new stuff to argue about.
The second is that strategy changes as the rules change, so bear that in mind before declaring that a rule change will kill the sport on the basis that current tactics will be rendered unviable, because trust me when I say that the players will adapt (that's not to say that there's no such thing as a bad rule change, of course). Roundarm and overarm were initially criticised on the basis that they were too difficult for batsmen to play compared to underarm; by 1981, it was underarm that was being criticised on the basis that it was too difficult for batsmen to play compared to roundarm and overarm. Oh, how the turns table.
The final lesson is that etymology is weird. In cricket, the act of delivering the ball is called 'bowling', even though deliveries haven't actually been bowled since the eighteenth century (that one incident in 1981 aside). In baseball, the act of delivering the ball is called 'pitching', even though deliveries don't actually pitch (with a few exceptions). FWIW, it's called 'pitching' in baseball because initially, balls had to be delivered underarm (just like in the early days of cricket) in an action comparable to pitching horseshoes. As with 'bowling' in cricket, the term 'pitching' in baseball stuck even when the action changed (as far as I can tell, the term 'pitching' in baseball was never related to the term 'pitching' as it is used in cricket).
​

The Best Since Lohmann

Cricinfo will tell you that George Lohmann had the lowest Test bowling average of all time, with an impressive 10.75. This is fake news, of course; for example, the great England all-rounder, Sir Alastair Cook, has a Test bowling average of 7.00. Who has the lowest bowling average of all time in each format, then?
In Tests, three players hold the distinction of having a career bowling average of 0. The first one I want to talk about is England's Wilf Barber. In a 1935 three-day Test against South Africa (people gave the ICC flak for considering four-day Tests; imagine the reaction if they had opted for three-day Tests instead!), with England 1-0 down in a five-match series, South Africa in their second innings required 340 runs to win with just four-and-a-half hours remaining, so of course they blocked everything that they could. England used eight bowlers in that innings before eventually handing the ball to Wilf 'Golden Arm^TM' Barber, who took the fifth wicket in his second delivery, resulting in a draw. This was the only time Barber bowled in a Test match, so he ended up with career figures of 0.2-0-0-1.
The second person to mention would be New Zealand's Bruce Murray. This incident occurred in a 1968 Test against India: India required just 59 runs to win in their second innings with over a day left to play, so it's fair to say that the result was a foregone conclusion. Nonetheless, New Zealand trialled seven different bowlers, and one of them was Bruce Murray. The mad lad actually managed to dismiss one of the Indian openers and secure a maiden in his only over in Test cricket, ending with career bowling figures of 1-1-0-1 and a bowling average of 0.
The true GOAT, however, is a bowler to be feared. Just the mere mention of his name strikes horror into the heart of every batsman. His name is a truly terrifying name, for who wouldn't cower at hearing the name...Monkey Hornby? No, I'm not making this up; his actual name was Albert, but for whatever reason, Cricinfo lists him by his nickname 'Monkey'.
Anyway, in only the third ever Test match, Hornby bowled seven four-ball overs (28 balls in total) for zero runs and one wicket. Despite this stellar bowling performance, Australia only required 18 runs in their second innings to win the Test, so of course the Aussies seized the victory. England's defeat might have seemed inevitable given the low target, but they foolishly decided not to bowl Hornby in the final innings; no doubt he'd have dragged England to victory had he been given the chance to bowl. Hornby not only holds the record for the most balls bowled in Tests for an average of 0 but he also holds the record for the most balls bowled in Tests without conceding a run (Xavier Marshall and Roger Prideaux hold joint-second with 12 balls bowled, though neither took any wickets).
Unfortunately, no bowler has achieved a career ODI bowling average of 0, but Pakistan's Mohammad Yousuf holds the record for the lowest career ODI bowling average of all time, ending his career with an average of 1.00. His first bowling stint didn't go too well; in a 2004 Champions Trophy match between the Windies and Pakistan, the former required just one more run from 132 balls to win with seven wickets left. Pakistan decided to employ Mohammad Yousuf's mystery off-spin in a last-ditch attempt to win the match, but alas, he conceded a run off his first delivery, ending up with figures of 0.1-0-1-0 and an economy rate of 6.00.
However, this is where the Mohammad Yousuf redemption arc begins. In the 2007 World Cup, rain meant that Zimbabwe required 193 runs from 20 overs to beat Pakistan (say, this 20-over thing seems quite fun; someone should create a franchise league based on this format). With Zimbabwe 99/9 going into the final over, it's fair to say that the match was decided, so the Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq decided to have some fun and bowl Mohammad Yousuf. He immediately took the final wicket with his first delivery, ending up with innings figures of 0.1-0-0-1, career figures of 0.2-0-1-1 and a bowling average of 1.00.
As with ODIs, no bowler has finished their career with a T20I bowling average of 0, but two have finished with a bowling average of 1.00. The first person I want to mention in this regard is Zimbabwe's Cephas Zhuwao. In a 2008 T20I, Zimbabwe set Canada a target of 185, but the latter slumped to 74/9 going into the final over. This is where Zhuwao comes in with his slow left-arm orthodox, conceding a single off his first ball but taking a wicket off his second. He ended with career figures of 0.2-0-1-1.
More interesting is Pakistan's Mansoor Amjad. Supposedly selected as an all-rounder in a 2008 T20I against Bangladesh, he didn't bat at all in Pakistan's innings (despite his team losing five wickets) and didn't bowl until the sixteenth over of Bangladesh's innings (at which point they were 98/7 requiring 106 runs from 30 balls to win). Amusingly, Cricinfo lists him as bowling 'legbreak googly', which I can only imagine means that he's either the second coming of Shane Warne or the most village bowler ever to have played international cricket.
To determine which is the case, we have to look at how Amjad actually performed. He took wickets in the second, fifth and sixth balls of his one over, and although he conceded a no-ball in the third ball of the over, the subsequent free hit resulted in a dot. Ultimately, Amjad ended up with innings (and career) figures of 1-0-3-3 and a bowling average of 1.00. How Mansoor 'The Pakistani Warne' Amjad never played another T20I is beyond me; clearly, taking three wickets in his only over wasn't considered good enough to get another game, so I can only assume that Pakistan at that time contained a star-studded bowling attack consisting of the likes of, erm, Sohail Tanvir and Shoaib Malik.
​

Three Strikes...Wait, Wrong Sport

What about strike rate, though? In Tests, that honour once again goes to Wilf Barber, who ended up with a career strike rate of 2.0. This means that he would have required just 1600 balls to match Muralitharan's record of 800 wickets. Of course, this is just an extrapolation; it is ridiculous to conclude from such a small sample size that Barber would have maintained a strike rate of 2.0 over his career. For all we know, he could have been a much better bowler than his stats showed and he could have equalled Murali in far fewer than 1600 balls.
As for ODIs and T20Is, Mohammad Yousuf, Cephas Zhuwao and Mansoor Amjad all feature, each having a career strike rate of 2.0. However, England's Derek Randall also matches Mohammad Yousuf with an ODI strike rate of 2.0. Opening alongside Geoffrey Boycott (who somehow managed to score 105 runs from just 124 balls) in a 1979 ODI against the Aussies, England's bowling attack at the time consisted of such greats as Graham Dilley, Ian Botham, Bob Willis, Derek Underwood and, uh, Graham Gooch(?)
With Australia at 190/9 (having been set a target of 265), England decided to hand the ball to Randall, who went on to take one wicket for two runs in his first (and only) two deliveries in ODIs. With career figures of 0.2-0-2-1, Derek Randall ended up with a career ODI strike rate of 2.0, which is joint-first with Mohammad Yousuf.
​

It's The Economy, Stupid

I've already mentioned that Monkey Hornby holds the record for the most balls bowled in Tests without conceding a single run, but what about in the other formats of international cricket?
In ODIs, the record is held jointly by India's Ashok Malhotra and New Zealand's Glenn Turner, both of whom bowled one six-ball over in their careers without conceding a single run. Not much of interest here.
As for T20Is, no player has retired with a career economy rate of 0, so that achievement is one to look out for in the future. The West Indies' John Campbell holds the record for the lowest career T20I economy rate, though, having an economy rate of 1.00. It was March 2019 and the Windies were batting first against England, but they didn't put up much of a fight, collapsing to 71 all out after 13 overs (David Willey took a 4fer that game; why was he dropped again?).
England found themselves needing a mere 12 runs to win with 11 overs and eight wickets left, but Bairstow had just been bowled in the previous over (because of course he had), so all Jason Holder needed to do was to bring on a bowler who could cause England some trouble. Unfortunately, Roston Chase wasn't playing, so Holder had to settle for John Campbell's filthy offies instead.
Surprisingly, Campbell actually posed some threat for the England batsmen. Root was struck on the front pad on the fourth ball of the over (though the umpires decided it wasn't LBW) and nearly ran himself out going for the leg bye. Morgan then faced Campbell on the last ball of the over and nearly got clean-bowled. No doubt Campbell would have finished the job for the West Indies had Devendra Bishoo not ruined it by conceding eleven runs in his next three balls, but he can hang his head high knowing that he has the best economy rate in the history of T20Is.
All that is well and good, but how about individual innings? Who holds those records?
In Tests, India's Bapu Nadkarni holds the record for the most balls bowled in an innings without conceding a single run. In a 1962 Test against England, India had put on 428 runs in the first innings, leaving England with a lot to do in order to stay in the match. Nadkarni, a left-arm finger-spinner, performed his role to perfection, bowling 37 balls without conceding a single run; he even took a wicket (albeit that of the #11 batsman David Smith), leaving him with innings figures of 6.1-6-0-1. Unfortunately, he couldn't replicate this feat in England's second innings, conceding 25 runs off of 72 balls but taking another wicket (this time that of the great England batsman Sir Ken Barrington).
If we want to take a look at matches rather than innings then there are two places we could go. Hornby holds the record for the most overs bowled in a Test match without conceding a run, with his aforementioned seven-over effort, but if we're looking for the most balls bowled in a Test without conceding a run, we have to look elsewhere.
Enter the West Indian all-rounder John Goddard. The year was 1950 and England were being absolutely destroyed at Lord's; in fact, they ended up being set a target of 601 runs in their second innings, so as you can imagine, they simply didn't bother trying to score runs (they went at a run-rate of just 1.43 RPO), but credit has to go to Cyril Washbrook for scoring 114 runs in 330 minutes (including a six!).
In this situation, the West Indies needed a proper wicket-taker to skittle the England lineup regardless of how expensive it was; they instead got John Goddard, who bowled 36 balls without conceding a run or taking a wicket, ending up with innings (and match) figures of 6-6-0-0. Solid contribution from him. Thank goodness the Windies ended up winning, or else I'd imagine that Goddard would have received quite the earful from his captain.
By the way, I have to mention Sonny Ramadhin here. He bowled a whopping 72 overs in that innings (including 43 maidens), taking six wickets and conceding 86 runs. Jokes aside, that is actually very impressive. I get tired after bowling one ball, and I'd probably collapse from exhaustion by the time I reach the five-over mark, so hats off to Ramadhin for his immense endurance (note that this wouldn't be the last time Ramadhin would be forced to bowl a ridiculous number of overs, but we'll get to that later).
Moving on to ODIs, Ireland's Andrew White holds the record for the most balls bowled in an innings without conceding a run. This was achieved in 2010 against the Netherlands, when White bowled 14 balls without conceding a run; he also took a wicket (taking a catch off his own bowling), ending with figures of 2.2-2-0-1. The Netherlands finished on 125 all out, a target which Ireland chased with ease.
In T20Is, I was thinking that no-one would have bowled more than one over without conceding at least one run, given the nature of the format. However, Sri Lanka's Nuwan Kulasekara somehow achieved this unusual feat against (once again) the Netherlands in 2014, taking a wicket in the process.
To be fair, the Netherlands were frankly pathetic in that match, finding themselves at 1/3 after two overs and at 9/4 after four overs. They finished on 39 all out after 10.3 overs (thanks mainly to a hard-fought 16 from Tom Cooper; the next-highest score in that innings was 8) but weirdly, Kulasekara only bowled the first and third overs, ending with figures of 2-2-0-1. My theory is that the Sri Lankan captain (Dinesh Chandimal) realised that Kulasekara would take the record for the most balls bowled in a T20I without conceding a run provided that he didn't concede any runs, so he deliberately prevented Kulasekara from bowling again in order to enter the record books. I, for one, applaud Chandimal's dedication to the performance of unusual bowling feats.

'Wait, It's All One Bowler?' 'Always Has Been 🌎 👨‍🚀 🔫👨‍🚀'

Cricket is a team sport, or so they say. In reality, that isn't always the case, as one or two star bowlers can carry an entire bowling attack. Even in those cases, you'd expect the other bowlers to chip in with the wickets, but what about situations when all the wickets in an innings falls to one bowler? Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way to find all such instances on Cricinfo, so I'll have to settle for cases where one bowler has taken all ten wickets.
In Tests, this has only occurred twice. The first such instance was in a Test between England and Australia in 1956. In Australia's second innings (after being forced to follow-on), left-arm spinner Tony Lock bowled the most overs at 55, but he failed to take a wicket. In fact, off-spinner Alan Oakman, as well as pacers Brian Statham and Trevor Bailey, failed to take any wickets. It was Jim Laker who took 10/53 at an economy rate of 1.03 to win the match for England. As we'll soon see, he was basically carrying England's back throughout that entire match as far as bowling was concerned, but before that, let's move on to the second occasion in which this has occurred.
For this example, we have to go back to the ancient days of 1999, when there was an occasional occurrence of a mythical phenomenon known as an 'India-Pakistan Test match'. Pakistan were set a target of 420 (haha le funny weed number) in their second innings but were well-set for the draw after scoring 101 without loss by lunch on the fourth day. That was until Anil Kumble ripped through the Pakistani batsmen, taking 10/74 at an economy rate of 2.79. Kumble bowled 26.3 of the 60.3 overs, or 44% of India's bowling overs, so it's fair to say that it was an incredible effort.
Unfortunately, never in the history of Tests has one bowler taken all 20 wickets, and it seems unlikely to happen anytime soon. The closest to achieve this feat was Jim Laker, yes, the same Jim Laker who took 10/53 against Australia. That was in the second innings, but in the first innings, he took 9/37, leaving him with match figures of 68-27-90-19. That's right: He single-handedly took every Australian wicket except for one. That one wicket? Opener Jim Burke, who was caught by Colin Cowdrey off the bowling of Tony Lock. I'm not sure what to think of this: On the one hand, Lock ought to be praised for being the only England bowler in that match apart from Laker who actually did his job (i.e. taking wickets), but on the other hand, Lock prevented us from witnessing the unusual feat of one bowler taking all 20 wickets in a Test match. Mixed bag, if you ask me.
Has one bowler taking all ten wickets in an innings ever occurred in ODIs or T20Is? Unfortunately, no, or at least not yet. This feat is still up for grabs, so watch out for it the next time you decide to follow an ODI or T20I. In fact, no bowler has even taken nine wickets in an innings in either of those formats, so this isn't a case of a Tony Lock denying us the opportunity.
​
Anyway, that's all for Part One. On to Part Two!

Since it's the end of another decade for cricket , I thought why not reminisce about they great decade of cricket we had. I would focus on team India as it's the team of which I can claim to have followed the majority of the matches.
2011-12
The first year of the decade , Indian team was the No: 1 test side since 2009 , dominating at home and being extremely competitive abroad winning in NZ , Eng, drawing in SA and fighting well with Ponting's Australia down under all in a span of 3-4 years. To add cherry on top of that winning the World Cup meant this was the peak of Indian cricket and given where we were at the turn of the century it was one heck of an achievement to reach this position.
Note that Ishant Sharma was still pretty shit.
2012-13
As big as the highs were , who knew the lows were going to be just as deep. The no 1 test team team crashed and burned in incredible fashion and got white washed in two consecutive series in Eng and Aus , tons of legends had to retire and if that wasn't enough the nail to the coffin was hit by Sir Alistair Cook and his men when they beat India in their own fortress after 28 years when Panesar and Swann taught Indians how to bowl spin and I think at this point the stumps , bails , bat and ball basically anything to do with cricket should have been burnt and sent to England at that point. Funnily this series was my introduction to cricket as a 11 year old who despite being in india didn't know the name of a single cricketer other than Sachin Tendulkar.
Phew, Anyways the horror show ends here, or does it..? Though it doesn't feel like much now , but at that time when Pakistan was visiting for the first time after the terrorist attack and beat India in an odi series in India , it felt like a huge deal, I guess it was the series where we discovered Bhuvi, and during those days he used to swing like a banana albiet a bit slower, his wickets of the first balls on debut where fucking ridiculous. Regardless we did fine in ODi compared to our standards back then when we never used to win odi series in SENA , and Virat Kohli's thrashing in Hobart stands out even to this day , and to think that his 183 is still his highest after 43 fucking hundreds is a miracle.
Anyways the redemption in test cricket came when Australia visited India. We didn't know at the time , but in retrospect the worst Australian side I have ever seen play test cricket and poor bastards thought they could sneak a victory against this depleted indian side and they rightfully got demolished due their pathetic attitude towards homework and trust me Nathan Lyon back then was so bad that it felt like he was a club bowler , didn't know the dude would develop into the beast he is now. Luckily wade was shit then and now , the loud mouth's constant though.
That 4-0 victory over the fake team which tried to convince us that they were thev real Aussies is what I consider to be the beginning of our journey in becoming one of the best test teams in the world again, though is was not to happen any time soon , still this is where I can trace it all back , this is where Ashwin and Jadeja showed a glimpse of what they were going to do to the poor visiters for the rest of the decade , plus by this point Pujara and Rahane where abvious standouts in the middle order , along with Kohli, even Murli Vijay who a lot of people don't like , which goes over my head as he is unironically the best test opener for us this decade and yeah we were never able to find him a proper opening partner , and by the time he went completely shit , we had zero openers performing well for us in any conditions other than home.
Also who can forget Shikhar Dhawan's debut test century and Dhoni's double century.
Note that Ishant Sharma was still shit.
2013-2014
Now this was the year where we won our last ICC trophy of any kind, it's a shame they scrapped champions trophy after this year.Who knew Rohit Sharma's move to the opening spot would give us one of the finest batsmen in coloured clothing the world has ever seen. By that point even with his ridiculous talent™, it seemed like the final days of him getting anymore chances , if he had failed miserably there.
There was a great odi series against aus at home, Rohit scored the first of his three double hundreds, poor Ishant have away 30 runs off an over to end his loi career forever.
Faulkner was a good cricketer during this time who was supposed to achieve big things , he batted and bowled pretty well in this series.
Sachin played his last series , at the time it was quite a relief , and also very emotional , never seen a test match as jam packed as that in India , maybe the pink ball test against Bangladesh was close. Shami was the revelation of the series , and his reverse swing exploits in his debut match is still the best spell of reverse swing I have seen by any Indian this decade.
Now as the winner of champions trophy which basically means we where the champions among champions at a time when we ourself where the world champions , we went with all our super sayen power to tour South Africa.
This was my first away tour as a fan to any country let alone the land where Steyn breathes fire.
First odi of the match , SA comes wearing pink , I laugh and make a few cringey pink = girly jokes. My first introduction to Steyn on Live telly and bruh the talented Rohit Sharma didn't touch the ball for his first 30 deliveries. I dunno how one can miss so many consecutive edges, maybe the balls where too good to get an edge , in that match Virat scored a four of Steyn with a straight drive when Rohit was being treated as if he was a drunk no 11 , and to this day that reminds me of how Virat is a cut a above Rohit regardless of how many mental gymnastics the mentally challenged brohit fans do to claim otherwise. Anyways we lost 3-0 in that series as expected but during those days even ODIs felt like impossible to win in SA for us. Also de dock announced himself with three centuries in all the matches that series.
That test series was Kohli's first in SA and he had a lot to prove back in those days , and he did and iirc so did Pujara. The second test is what everyone would remember where SA almost chased down the world record total, god the bowling was pathetic then.
During this time an awkward young kid with an even more awkward bowling action bowled for MI on debut , and it didn't seems like much at the time , just that he was awkward.
Note that Ishant Sharma was still pretty shit.
2014- 15
Then we go to New Zealand and baz scores a triple century and makes us fuck off.
The t20 worldcup was pretty good for us we went into the finals , Sri Lanka bowled really good at the death, basically every ball was a wide yorker and this was the beginning of a long stretch of losing on the finals or semi-finals for us in the decade.
Now comes the groups first test series in England , I meant just in essence , dhoni and Ishant had played their before but still this was the India in transition, the first test was a draw all I remember is Murli Vijay had a great knock . The next match at lords is one of the most important matches for us this decade , before this I guess we hadn't won a test match in SENA countries since I guess 2008 when we won in NZ 1-0 , I mean come on , I guess we all should be glad things aren't that bad now and we do win atleast a test in most places we play and other teams have to, lots of the times , work there asses of to win against us in their own backyard. Now Rahane scored probably the Indian test century of the decade according to me , and also his favorite century as claimed by the man himself after his exploits in the Boxing Day test recently.
Now hear me out , Ishant got his career best figures in the second innings here , but this is still a time when he was pretty mediocre, and even though I don't want to take any credit away from him , a lot has to do with a collective brain fade from England while playing the short balls from Ishant. Anyways we won and it was a great day, sweet victory in SENA after a long time after two matches we led the series 1-0 , and tbh if we were Sri Lanka or Pakistan we would be going on home after avenging our home test series loss, but no the big boys have to play 5 test matches FFS, nothing much to say here Bhuvneshwar Kumar was our best batsman and bowler that series , we got fucked really fucking bad by Anderson and yeah 3-1.
But even more than that the series would be known as Virat Kohli's lowest point in his test career [ yet (๑•﹏•)]. The world found out that he is no Tendulkar and does have a severe flaw in his technique playing the out swinger. And to be honest we all know that to some extent he still has that flaw , unlike Williamson and Smith who basically have no major flaws in their technique. Yet I would say he is the second best test batsman of the generation after Smith.
Atleast back in the day England used to be a piss poor odi side who played like it was the 70s , and we won that series , but it was not sweet enough to compensate for the thrashing in tests.
Now next we move on to the Border Gavaskar Trophy in Aus, Dhoni called it quits as a test cricketer and Virat takes the helm ,it was basically a run fest, Virat and Smith both scored tons of runs , and we almost won a test in Adelaide , but it could have been worse given how Mitchell Johnson blew England away and South Africa too, but the pitches maybe weren't that conducive or he declined a bit or both , anyways it was basically chat shit get banged for him that series anyways. We lost 2-0 , but this was a series where we could say we played respectable cricket.
Note that Ishant Sharma was still quite shit.
2015 - 2016
We weren't in great form as an odi side around the time of the world cup as we lost a series pretty badly to Australia , who where eventually the champions , Starc was breathing fire back then.
But we won every match in the group stages , and finally lost to Australia in the semi-finals. Fuck Starc , he's too good. No problem we'll win in 2019.
Now in the test world we have had lots of back to back tough series , all the players where new , but by now lots of them where quite experienced and settled in the squad.
Now many people like to say that Indian wins in Sri Lanka shouldn't be counted as away wins and it's still the sub continent etc etc , but before 2015, the last and only time india beat Sri Lanka in Lanka was in the early nineties. Now during this time Sri Lanka was still a great team especially at home they still had Sangakara , Herath both at their best and on top of that they had Karunaratne , Thirimanne and Chandimal. Also remember the time when Angelo Mathews was one of the best test batsman in the world? Yeah he was the captain. The first test match went to them after a second innings collapse from India , that would be the last test Sri Lanka wins against India and they played 8 more tests after this. Anyways India came back triumphantly to win the next two tests to get only their second ever test series victory in the supposedly easy land Sri Lanka and this was to be the beginning of a very dominant period of test cricket for India after which, eventually they'd become the country with the second most number of months as world no 1 in test cricket after Australia since 2003 when the icc ranking begun.
This was the first series where Ishant Sharma started to show some improvement.
Next , South Africa visits India for a test series. Now South Africa has drawn their last two test series in India and I would even go on as far as to say they were even better than the legendary Australia when it came to test cricket in India. Virat Kohli at this time wanted to get really spin friendly wickets as according to him many teams around the world create green wickets and all to get home advantage , there was lots of complaining from faf , but any ways they got thumped 3-0 for the first time ever in India and that was the beginning of a very dominant home stretch.
One highlight was the blockathon from ABD -Amla and also twin centuries from Rahane in that test which where the only centuries in the whole series iirc.
Now India goes to west Indies and get a convincing test series victory, now WI us still a good test team at home , they have beaten good sides like England and Pakistan but they always fail to show up against India, so that's that.
Note than Ishant was still a bit shit.
2016-2017
Next New Zealand visits India , and get ravaged 3-0 with huge margins , India used to always be a dominant side at home , but this was starting to get scary, Ashwin and Jadeja were unplayable literally every match.
Next comes England , the winners of the last series between the two in India. Oh the revenge was cold and sweet , the way we destroyed them was something else , huge scores , losing after scoring almost 500 runs multiple times , triple hundreds , who can forget the hundred from jayant yadav. This was a massacre, and it was due since a long time.
Now as you know Kohli and Shastri were quite cocky by this time, so were the fans and I mean can you blame us? Australia came after a lot of preparation, fuckers where praising Ashwin as the Bradman of bowling to jinx him. The Pune test was a shock, this was before Steve Smith's redemption in the Ashes and as an Indian fan the only other time I really saw him scoring lots of runs it wasn't really tough conditions and on top of that it was at home. This Pune test changed that, I think I have seen the best test batsman of the generation , and maybe even for the next 30 years. Kohli went fishing for that series , and we were again in the backfoot after the first innings of the second test. But then as Ashwin had warned Aussies didn't get a considerable lead , and Ashwin had them for soup . The last test was again won by India to finish a well fought test series.
We all know what happened in the t20 world cup, we reached the semi , and WI thumped us. Who can forget the Ashwin no ball , atleast I mean maybe it's just an anomaly surely an Indian bowler can't bowl a no ball in another major icc knockout match right? Right?
Note that Ishant is very very slightly shit
2017-2018
Okay I have a confession to make. I may have lied about something , ok I admit there was a champions trophy in 2017. And yeah we got thumped so bad , that idk what to say, fairytale stuff for pakistan though , tbh I don't remember them beating us in any other match since 2013 , but probs to them they won the second most important match between us this decade , after the icc wc semi final.
Atleast after the champions trophy we decided to bring in Kuldeep and Chahal and with the rise of Bumrah and even Shami we started to actually become a good bowling side in one day internationals.
We started to not only win at home in loi but in SA , NZ , Aus and that too convincingly, the only loss I remember during this time was probably against the future worldcup champions England at their home , but then again they are probably the greatest odi side probably only second to the legendary Aussie side.
Now we tour Sri Lanka again and by this time Sri Lanka has detoriated quite a bit , they aren't their previous self and don't have Sanga , Herath and Mathew is not his former self. They get thumped 3-0 at home and it's probably our first overseas whitewash.
Next they tour us and we are arrogant enough to act as if this is practice for upcoming overseas tour and make green pitches and all. I remember the Delhi test with pollution and yeah two matches where drawn rather surprisingly still India won 1-0.
By this time you can see that Ishant is slowly improving and his performances are becoming much better.
Now India visits SA and this time India is an experienced side , they are still not a world class bowling line up , but that was going to change , and that happened here when Bumrah was given his test cap. There were lots of questions about this , people where saying that he cannot get swing or seam and his action was not meant for test cricket etc etc, anyways it didn't even take much time tbh , he was an instant success just like he was in loi and took decent amount of wickets every innings , India lost the first two test matches , but all those matches were close , popular consensus is that ABD was the diffrence , India won the last test match which was on a green mamba of a picth, and Bumrah takes his first fifier in the last test match and rest is history. It's too early , but still he is easily the best fast bowler India has ever had, greatest not yet solely due to the fact that some others have more years of service.
Note that Ishant is finally bowling as one of the best bowlers.
2018-2019
Now we go back to England , all eyes were on Kohli , I think he played one of his best innings that match playing with the tail to keep India in the game. Yeah India was in the game a lot of the times infact , yes the scoreline was 4-1 , but this series was well fought , still England were the better team , but India got one famous victory in Nottingham and yeah that's that.
Pretty disappointing , a similar result was predicted down under. Who knew Warner and Steve Smith had diffrent plans , they did their noble deed and we're kicked out of the sport for an year , and yeah this did play a part in giving India a huge advantage.
So yeah we visited down under and as we all know we thumped Australia , should have been 3-1 if not for the rain in Sydney , it was a historic series win , the bowling we faced was still the best in the world. Pujara played the series of his life , and Indian bowling was as good if not better.
In ODIs we are doing really well but still haven't found a good middle order. And yeah we never found that before the world cup.
Note that Ishant Sharma is one of the best bowlers in the world.
2019-2020
Back to back odi series against Australia , both win one of the series at the opposition's home , but we beat them in the WC. We again reach the semi finals and again just like last time lose in the semi's , at this point if we didn't have a decently stacked trophy cabinet we would be the chokers of the decade.
We visit west indies and I think I see Bumrah bowling the best he ever has , he was literally unplayable before getting a stress fracture , which gave real scares to all of us.
Next South Africa visits India again and if last time was a thumping , this time was a complete annihilation , even the pitches where pretty balanced and our pacer out bowled their pacers , tbh it wasn't even a contest , they looked like club cricketers , except faf, he was the lone warrior. 3-0 , but we all know SA is going through a crisis, so nothing surprising.
Bangladesh visit India for 2 tests and again if SA had one batsman doing well , Bangladesh had zero. The day-night test was the most fun test match in terms of crowd participation since Tendulkar's farewell series. But in terms of cricket it was completely one sided.
Note thatIshant is one of the best bowlers in the world
2020
By this time we have been the world no 1 test side for 4 consecutive years , and rightly so according to me , we haven't been world dominators or something , but we where still the best of the lot.
But the biggest disappointment atleast for me in the decade after the England series in 2012 , came when we toured NZ , yeah Ishant Sharma wasn't available , but the way we got rolled over in both the tests after making so much progress in all these years was very disappointing , but we can consider it of as only 2 off tests but still it was very disappointing.
On top of that being white washed in odi series was also pretty humiliating and one concern has to be the ineffectiveness of the odi bowling side recently. But one thing is the middle order is doing slightly better plus the world cup is in India , so bowling won't be that much of a problem I hope. It's still a long way.
We white wash them 5-0 is a T20 series with two of them in super overs and that was very satisfying.
Then Covid hits and the world goes into a frenzy.
We visit Australia again in 2 years , and start by very poorly losing the first two ODIs , the bowling looks problematic.
We redeem ourself in the t20s though and since the next two world cups are t20s I guess that's good that we are consistently winning.
And at the fag end of the decade we play the first test in Adelaide , we start well considering Ishant isn't available again , we get them quite cheaply getting a handy lead , at the end of day two we where thinking of scoring another 200 runs atleast to get a good enough lead to win the test match. In probably the worst session of cricket India has ever played in their 88 years of playing this game , we get all out for 36 , and rightly everyone starts prediction a 4-0 whitewash , I mean who wouldn't.
I guess one of the best test match victories for the country not just in this decade but in our entire history came as the last test match of the decade.. Coming back from an all time low , not having Kohli , Ishant , Bhuvi , Shami and Umesh getting injured mid game , with two debutants India makes a great comeback coming back from a historic low.
That's that, it has been a great decade , certainly India's best decade in terms of win rates and results and all and even icc trophies , not getting atleast one ICC trophy in the later end of the decade dampens the fun a bit , let's hope that changes in the future. The biggest thing to happen is certainly getting good fast bowlers in the second half of the decade.
Exciting times ahead , we probably have more talent coming through every year in domestic than ever before, especially in fast bowling , currently very excited for Kartik Tyagi , and also hope nagarkoti and Mavi don't get lost , Natrajan , Siraj , Saini are all good. As usual lots and lots of batting talent coming through, also a couple of exciting wicket keepers in Rishab and Ishan kishan and even Sanju , if Rahul can keep well , that's the best case scenario for the loi teams.
All through the decade IPL has evolved into a mature league and is only going strength to strength .
One thing which has detoriated a bit I feel is our fielding which was top notch for a long time from champions trophy 2013 untill recently. Lots of catches being dropped and there's no excuses for that.
I think in the first decade of the century we went from a average team to a good team , this decade after a blip early on , we have transitioned easily into a top 3 team irrespective of the format. Without a doubt the most successful decade for Indian cricket in terms of results , the 2000s died for this.
At the end I want to have a word for Ishant Sharma , for the majority of his career he was the most mediocre cricketer I have ever seen , he was statistically the worst fast bowler to play the number of tests he did with a bowling avg of about 38-40 , I don't think anyone except Ishant himself would have ever thought that he would be averaging around 17-18 accross the world over a 3 year span , and I for one never thought I would say that he is one of the best test bowlers in the world. It's one of the greatest cricket career redemptions ever and I for one respect the hell out of the dude. Being mediocre wasn't his fault , he was still the best the country had produced for a long time and that was probably more frustrating, that we had no choice. Regardless he has 3 tests to go to reach 100 tests and I think he is certainly among the Indian greats and without doubt a vital part of the greatest Indian bowling unit ever.

Link to Introduction: www.reddit.com/Cricket/comments/k7upz6/taking_glamorgan_to_glory_a_cricket_captain_2020/
First, we need to make new signings. Unfortunately, we only have the budget for one new player. That is ex-England international spinner (although techically he's still not retired), Monty Panesar, famous for surviving over 11 overs with James Anderson to draw the 2009 Ashes first Test (held at Glamorgan's stadium funnily enough). He's also taken 167 test wickets at an average of 34, and 709 first class wickets at an average of 31. I'm confident we can get the best out of him.
Our first game is a match against Cardiff University. We are overwhelming favourites, and I'm expecting a big win.
We win the toss and bat first. By the end of the first session, which was 40 minutes shorter than usual thanks to rain, we're sitting at a comfortable 58/0, and openers Nick Selman and Charlie Hemphrey look settled. In the next session, both reach 50. The uni students are being utterly ridiculed. Hemphrey finally cracks with five minutes to go before tea and is bowled, having contributed 74 in an opening stand of 167. Selman and Marnus Labuschagne see us to the end of the second session
The two look reasonably confident, although Labuschagne is dropped on 30 by a diving third slip. Selman brings up a century by pummeling Gerald Righton through the covers for four. However, he's bowled by his namesake Nick Seaman on 110. A fine innings. Labuschagne makes up for it by reaching 50. He's on 66 by the end of the day, with wicketkeeper Chris Cooke on 25. We're 305/2 and are looking every inch the favourite we are.
Cooke falls early on day 2, lbw to Seaman for 30. Billy Root is next man in, but the main entertainment is provided by Marnus. His century comes up after 183 balls faced, and he's already hit 10 fours and a six. It's so good I don't really notice when Root and David Lloyd are both caught behind, for 9 and 14 respectively. Now we're into the tail. Ruahdri Smith falls for a four-ball duck, but some elegant batting by Marnus gets us to 404/6 by lunch.
The Aussie international shows no sign of slowing down. He hits another six, and brings up his 150 with his 17th four. Even Marchant de Lange, a fast bowler batting at eight, gets in on the action - he hits a couple of fours as well. By tea, the efforts of Labuschagne have hauled us to 470/6.
Labuschage finds the boundary a few more times, before bringing up a double century with yet another four. I applaud him - it's a great acheivement, even against a university team. In fact, he surpasses his current highest first class score - 215 - soon afterwards.
Day 3. Marnus finds the rope a few more times. I've been so engrossed in his innings that I fail to notice that Marchant de Lange has passed fifty. He finally gets out lbw on 64 off 129 balls. With forty minutes left in the opening session, I declare on 602/7. Marnus finishes on 259 not out - what an innings he's had. Timm van der Gugten also finishes not out, having scored 1 off 25 balls.
GLAMORGAN 1ST INNINGS: 602/7 DEC (Labuschagne 259*, Selman 110; Seaman 3-88, Ringham 2-109).
The students will need at least 402 to make us bat again. I'm pretty sure that won't happen. By lunch they are 28/0. I notice the pitch is suited for spinners - time to bring on Monty. We make our first breakthrough when Alan Sereny edges a Michael Hogan delivery to Labuschagne at slip - 42/1. Labuschagne then has Phillip Castle caught by Lloyd (yes, he can take wickets as well) before Monty gets the wickets of Greg Robin for 18 and Kevin Rule for a golden duck in two consecutive balls, both out lbw.
De Lange then has Seaman caught behind - Cardiff MCCU are 114/5. He then snags the wickets of Ian Menen - caught in the deep - and Chris Righton - lbw. Cardiff MCCU are 142/7 and need 311 to avoid the follow on. Alan Marlowe, an opener and the students' top scorer with 48, then finds himself caught at slip by Marnus Labuschagne off Scotsman Ruaidrhi Smith. Next ball, Stuart Coates is put down at slip. Shortly afterwards, Hogan traps Mitchell Singh in front for a duck, before Smith castles George Ringham on 10. Cardiff MCCU are all out for 154, 448 runs behind Glamorgan. I ask them to follow on.
CARDIFF MCCU 1ST INNINGS: 154 (Marlowe 48, Menen 24; de Lange 3-20, Smith 2-6).
Timm van der Gugten strikes in the fourth over, having Sereny caught behind for 7. Hogan gets in on the action when he has Castle caught at slip for 1. Cardiff Uni make it to 66/2 before Robin is trapped in front by Smith, before Monty does the same to Kevin Rule. 81/4. Seaman then nicks a Labuschagne delivery to Chris Cooke behind the stumps. 92/5. Menen is dismissed in the exact same fashion. It's 98/6 and victory looks assured.
A few overs later: What? Match drawn? It's only day three. What do you mean, uni matches are three days long? Oh, I'm embarrassed. But I'm cheered by the thought that we probably would have won.
CARDIFF MCCU 2ND INNINGS: 106/6 (Marlowe 46*, Robin 30; Labuschagne 2-13, Hogan 1-15.
MATCH DRAWN.
I hope you stick around for part 2!

Introduction

Here's a question for all you England fans: In an all-time ODI top six batting lineup, how many spots would be taken up by the current generation of players? Would an all-time England ODI batting lineup simply consist of Roy, Bairstow, Root, Morgan, Stokes and Buttler, or would past players make the cut? It might seem ridiculous to suggest that all of England's current batsmen would walk into the all-time XI, but I think it's a serious possibility. Let's investigate.
​

Methodology

For ODI batsmen, there are really two metrics to consider: Batting average and strike rate. To assign a 'batting rating' (BatRat), the simplest thing to do would be to take the geometric mean of those two values (i.e. the square root of the product of these values). This should work fine for our purposes because in an ODI, the two main goals of the batting team are to score runs and to score them quickly. It may be the case that a method that weighs one of these metrics more than the other would be more suitable, but the one I'm using for this analysis is probably the simplest one available while still retaining some degree of credibility.
There are two caveats to consider, though. One is that both batting averages and strike rates in ODIs have increased over time. Once upon a time, a strike rate of 70 would have been considered decent, but now it'd be considered too sluggish for a specialist batsman. I'll thus be adjusting both values according to the aggregate stats of the era in which a particular batsman played, excluding that batsman's own stats; this post scales these stats according to a hypothetical era where the average is 30 and the strike rate is 80, so hopefully, that post's creator won't mind if I use that same benchmark for this analysis.
The second caveat is that different positions in the batting lineup have different expectations. Joe Root and Jos Buttler, for instance, do not play the same role at all, with the former being an anchor and the latter being an explosive finisher. Thus, rather than simply selecting the six best batsmen according to their BatRat, I'll be breaking the stats down per position in the lineup to account for these expectations. Hopefully, by the end of this analysis, we'll be able to determine six spots in an England all-time ODI XI.
​

Openers

In this post, I will only be considering batsmen who have at least twenty dismissals in ODIs for England. Openers are listed from highest batting rating to lowest.
​

Player	Batting average	Strike rate	Era average	Era SR	AdjAverage	AdjSR	BatRat
Jonny Bairstow	49.25	110.82	36.55	83.23	40.42	106.52	65.62
Jason Roy	41.17	107.08	36.43	84.31	33.90	101.61	58.69
Graham Gooch	40.29	62.12	31.25	59.84	38.68	83.05	56.68
Marcus Trescothick	37.37	85.21	32.12	74.24	34.90	91.82	56.61
Ian Bell	42.49	79.50	32.52	79.04	39.20	80.47	56.16
Andrew Strauss	38.16	83.46	31.87	77.66	35.92	85.97	55.57
Alex Hales	38.70	96.29	35.98	85.56	32.27	90.03	53.90
Nick Knight	40.30	73.16	33.35	74.06	36.25	79.03	53.52
Alastair Cook	36.40	77.13	32.57	78.98	33.53	78.13	51.18
Craig Kieswetter	29.96	94.17	33.36	79.66	26.94	94.57	50.48
Moeen Ali	31.33	99.84	35.45	83.73	26.51	95.39	50.29
Geoffrey Boycott	36.06	53.56	32.40	57.00	33.39	75.17	50.10
Michael Atherton	38.34	59.68	32.57	67.37	35.31	70.87	50.03
Ian Botham	26.60	73.29	31.40	60.18	25.41	97.43	49.76
Graeme Fowler	31.00	56.32	29.45	57.50	31.58	78.36	49.74
Chris Broad	40.02	55.61	33.40	65.09	35.95	68.35	49.57
Alec Stewart	33.58	68.14	32.69	70.38	30.82	77.45	48.86
Vikram Solanki	28.45	76.99	31.96	71.89	26.71	85.68	47.83
Matt Prior	23.81	78.55	32.25	78.68	22.15	79.87	42.06
Chris Tavaré	26.82	47.38	30.75	57.36	26.17	66.08	41.58
Michael Vaughan	19.28	67.72	30.76	74.60	18.80	72.62	36.95

​
That's a lot of data to sift through, so I won't go through every batsman on the list (feel free to have a look yourself if you're curious). There are some observations for me to make, however.
​

• The fact that Prior, Vaughan and Tavaré (the former two being rubbish at scoring runs and the latter being far too slow for a format where speed is required) all got extended runs in the team as openers says it all about our options over the years
• The difference between Bairstow and second-place is greater than the difference between second-place and eighth-place
• Not only is Bairstow the GOAT English ODI opener by a country mile (even when adjusted for era, he smashes everyone in both departments) but he's arguably a candidate for the GOAT ODI opener in general (although I haven't compared other countries to check this)
• Jason Roy is a solid candidate for England's second-greatest ODI opener; his average is nothing exceptional, but his high SR more than makes up for it
• Alex Hales is really nothing special; in fact, when adjusted for era, Trescothick beats him in both average and strike rate
• Speaking of Trescothick, he and Gooch were our best ODI openers prior to Roy and Bairstow despite their contrasting styles: The former batted aggressively but had a middle-of-the-road average whereas the latter had a very good average (third-best of all time when adjusted for era) but an average SR
• The decision to drop Bell was the right one in retrospect, but let us not forget that he was actually a solid opener who still has the second-highest adjusted average behind only Bairstow
• Ian Botham and Craig Kieswetter were both ahead of their time in the sense that they foreshadowed England's current strategy of batting aggressively in the opening overs, but both of them were inconsistent when it came to scoring runs and so got dropped

​
I think it's clear that Bairstow walks straight into England's best XI, and Roy gets the other opening spot. In other words, our two current ODI openers are the best ODI openers that England have ever had, so remember that next time you criticise either of them after a poor innings. Will it be the same with the #3 spot? Let's find out!
​

No. 3 Batsmen

From now on, the lists of batsmen shouldn't be nearly as long as now we're only considering a single position (whereas with openers, we're essentially considering two positions). Once again, the minimum cutoff is twenty ODI dismissals for England.
​

Player	Batting average	Strike rate	Era average	Era SR	AdjAverage	AdjSR	BatRat
Joe Root	55.86	90.56	40.27	82.11	41.61	88.23	60.59
Graeme Hick	44.53	75.26	32.76	67.85	40.78	88.74	60.15
Jonathan Trott	49.71	77.97	35.38	75.92	42.15	82.16	58.85
Robin Smith	41.94	68.85	34.76	66.75	36.20	82.52	54.65
Nasser Hussain	39.84	72.95	34.86	71.41	34.29	81.73	52.93
David Gower	33.06	77.82	33.17	66.80	29.90	93.20	52.79
Ian Bell	35.91	74.15	34.28	75.96	31.43	78.09	49.54
Kevin Pietersen	28.85	81.31	33.57	74.32	25.78	87.52	47.50
Michael Vaughan	32.66	67.27	33.89	72.99	28.91	73.73	46.17

​
Since there are fewer names to get through, I'll be going through everyone on this list individually.
​

• Once again, our current #3 (Joe Root) is England's greatest according to this metric, but he doesn't dominate to nearly the same extent as Bairstow does
• Hick in particular was a superb #3 for England in ODIs and looking at his adjusted stats, he was basically the Joe Root equivalent of his time (in fact, he has a higher BatRat than Jason Roy)
• Trott was also a fantastic #3 and his batting average is the best out of everyone on the list when eras are taken into account
• Robin Smith was a pretty good batsman as well (his BatRat is better than Hales' for comparison)
• Nasser and Gower were pretty decent, and like Trescothick and Gooch, they had two very different playstyles (Gower is the most aggressive #3 that England have ever had)
• Bell, while a solid opener, was bang average as a #3
• KP is much lower than I expected him to be; I can only predict that his middle-order numbers are much better
• Vaughan is once again the worst of the lot, though not as bad has he was as opener

​
I think you could make an argument for any one of Root, Hick or Trott in an all-time XI, but Root just about edges it if we go by these metrics. Will this streak of our current batsmen being our GOAT batsmen continue into #4? Let's see.
​

No. 4 Batsmen

Morgan has batted for both England and Ireland in ODIs, but for the purposes of this analysis, I'm only considering his figures for England.
​

Player	Batting average	Strike rate	Era average	Era SR	AdjAverage	AdjSR	BatRat
Eoin Morgan	48.56	99.28	36.68	80.12	39.72	99.13	62.75
Kevin Pietersen	38.55	84.63	34.96	75.91	33.08	89.19	54.32
Allan Lamb	37.92	75.35	34.26	72.12	33.20	83.58	52.68
Joe Root	41.91	80.09	36.41	80.38	34.53	79.71	52.46
Graham Thorpe	41.42	70.62	35.37	73.24	35.13	77.14	52.06
Paul Collingwood	37.57	70.28	35.25	75.80	31.97	74.17	48.70
David Gower	29.65	72.87	32.41	70.74	27.45	82.41	47.56
Andrew Strauss	30.45	75.12	33.73	74.38	27.08	80.80	46.78
Graeme Hick	31.48	69.74	34.98	72.36	27.00	77.10	45.63
Nasser Hussain	23.23	63.84	35.22	72.90	19.79	70.06	37.23

​
So, what can we observe?
​

• Morgan is criminally underrated as an ODI batsman; like Bairstow, he is the best in his position out of every Engand batsman by a wide margin (he also tops the list in both metrics)
• KP fares much better at #4 than at #3, but his numbers still aren't as good as I expected
• Lamb, Root and Thorpe are pretty much the same at #4 as far as BatRat goes: Above average, but nothing spectacular
• Collingwood, Gower and Strauss were pretty mediocre at #4
• It amazes me how much worse Hick was at #4 than he was at #3
• Nasser was absolutely awful at #4

​
That's four in a row for our current batsmen, and our three best #4 batsmen in ODIs aren't even English! This analysis has reflected poorly so far on past England ODI teams, so let's hope that the #5 spot will restore some dignity.
​

No. 5 Batsmen

Once again, only Morgan's performances for England will be counted in his figures.
​

Player	Batting average	Strike rate	Era average	Era SR	AdjAverage	AdjSR	BatRat
Andrew Flintoff	46.02	94.33	32.11	77.74	43.00	97.07	64.60
Ben Stokes	49.76	92.20	32.63	83.94	45.75	87.87	63.40
Paul Collingwood	43.28	81.50	31.67	76.93	41.00	84.75	58.95
Neil Fairbrother	42.00	73.14	30.41	73.65	41.43	79.45	57.37
Eoin Morgan	37.13	90.08	32.57	82.10	34.20	87.78	54.79
Ian Botham	24.95	84.20	27.39	72.48	27.33	92.94	50.40
Alec Stewart	26.05	61.15	30.70	73.29	25.46	66.75	41.22
Mike Gatting	20.54	62.34	27.06	71.79	22.77	69.47	39.77

​
What's this? A retired England player tops the list? Is this some weird parallel universe? Anyway, let's draw some conclusions from this data.
​

• Flintoff was an absolute beast at #5 in ODIs; in fact, of all the batsmen so far, only Bairstow has a higher BatRat than he does
• This is to take nothing away from Stokes, though, who is also an absolute beast at #5 and who so far has the highest batting average of all the batsmen in this analysis when adjusting for position and era, which is an achievement in and of itself
• Poor old Collingwood would probably be remembered as one of England's best ODI batsmen if he didn't have two generational talents above him
• I had no idea who Neil Fairbrother was prior to making this post, but apparently, he was a superb #5 batsman for England in ODIs
• Morgan actually does decently well here, but it's clear that #4 is his best position
• Botham was very aggressive (of all of England's #5 batsmen, only Freddie beats him in adjusted SR) but he also struggled to score runs consistently
• Stewart and Gatting...weren't particularly good in this position

​
It's a straight toss-up between the blonde all-rounder and the ginger all-rounder, and I hear the argument that their bowling should also be considered when making an all-time XI, but going solely off of their batting for the purposes of this post, Flintoff makes it in ahead of Stokes (it's remarkable that the latter has the third-highest BatRat of all the players listed so far and still can't make it in). Unlike with the top four, it seems as if England have had some quality #5 batsmen over the years; it's just a shame that we couldn't back that quality up with a decent top order until now.
​

No. 6 Batsmen

It's the final category, and I think I already know who's going to top this list. Still, let's not get ahead of ourselves; let's see what the stats say.
​

Player	Batting average	Strike rate	Era average	Era SR	AdjAverage	AdjSR	BatRat
Jos Buttler	37.30	111.12	28.52	86.06	39.24	103.30	63.66
Ravi Bopara	31.00	84.93	28.86	81.53	32.22	83.34	51.82
Eoin Morgan	24.60	90.10	28.99	84.73	25.46	85.07	46.54
Andrew Flintoff	22.89	83.03	27.81	76.66	24.69	86.65	46.26
Paul Collingwood	27.42	71.59	28.50	77.71	28.86	73.70	46.12
Ian Botham	20.79	74.34	24.63	74.86	25.32	79.44	44.85

​
No surprises here, I think.
​

• Buttler is pretty clearly England's greatest ever #6 batsman in ODIs and it's not even close
• If anything, it could be argued that this methodology does Buttler a disservice due to him being a 'floating batsman' (his overall stats are actually better than his stats at just #6) but I have to be consistent here
• Ravi Bopara of all people is England's second-greatest #6 ODI batsman of all time
• Everyone else who has batted at #6 with some regularity hasn't done that good of a job at it
• Then again, the fact that only six batsmen made the twenty-dismissals cutoff (and that all but two of those batsmen qualify for at least one other category as well) suggests that the #6 position is particularly volatile, at least as far as England is concerned

​
I think it's obvious who takes the #6 spot in our all-time XI. Arise, Sir Ravi Bopara.
...
Nah, of course it's Buttler.
​

Conclusion

Taking into account only the batting ratings as discussed in this analysis, and not considering bowling, captaincy, wicket-keeping, team balance or any other factors, here's an all-time England ODI Top Six:
​
Jason Roy
Jonny Bairstow
Joe Root
Eoin Morgan
Andrew Flintoff
Jos Buttler
​
Honourable mentions include Graeme Hick and Jonathan Trott (both at #3), as well as Ben Stokes, Paul Collingwood and Neil Fairbrother (all three at #5).
So, yeah, 5/6 of the all-time England ODI Top Six are still part of our current first team, and Ben Stokes narrowly missed out on that #5 spot. That...is mind-blowing. I'd be shocked if any other ODI team (apart from nations which only recently started playing ODIs) had most or all of their current Top Six form their all-time Top Six, and yet for England, I'm not even that surprised. We've had the occasional ODI talent, but they have generally played in teams consisting of average ODI players (and that's if they're lucky).
It's quite hard to express just how different England have become in ODIs since 2015. Our ODI record prior to then was nothing special and we had precisely zero trophies to our name. Within five years, however, we've assembled one of the finest ODI batting lineups of all time, bred players who have become generational greats (a couple of whom might even be considered to be all-time greats), reached #1 in the rankings and, most importantly, won a Men's ODI World Cup for the first time ever.
Trevor Bayliss gets a lot of stick for how he handled the Test team, and as I pointed out in my most recent post, that criticism is largely justified. Seriously, we were awful for those four years and won games almost purely through individual brilliance. However, we have to remember that Bayliss was brought in to rejuvenate the ODI side and win a World Cup, bearing in mind that prior to his arrival, the England ODI team had become a laughing stock following the disaster that was the 2015 World Cup. To turn that around in just four years is seriously impressive and if for nothing else, I think we England fans should at least be grateful to Bayliss for that.

As a New Zealand fan, for a couple of years now I've had this nagging feeling that Williamson has been converting his starts into big scores more successfully than perhaps previously in his career. For one, 3 of his 4 double hundreds have come in the last 2 years. Also, I remember a home summer in 2017 where commentary noted that he was either getting out for single digits or going on to make big hundreds. His scores during that period were 104*, 2, 130, 2, 1, 176 and 1. This is a trend which I feel has continued somewhat and so I tried to see whether the data would confirm it. The results are indeed quite interesting.
As a base of comparison let's look at the performance of the Fab Four since 1 Jan 2017. I realise this is a bit of an arbitrary cut-off point but I think 4 years is long enough to be statistically significant. Here are the overall stats for that period:

Player	Innings	Runs	Average
Williamson	41	2467	66.68
Smith	45	2568	62.63
Kohli	57	3109	58.66
Root	79	3229	42.49

Williamson has the highest average of the past 4 years among not just the Fab Four but in test cricket overall (for players with >20 innings). He also has the lowest number of innings in this group, despite Smith serving a 12 month ban, although the lack of test cricket played by New Zealand is no secret. Root's drop in form is certainly not a secret and the numbers make this evident.
What about the ability to convert starts into big scores? One way to analyse this is to plot the batting average progression of a player during their innings. This asks: if a player is currently on x runs, what score do they make (on average) before being dismissed? Obviously when a player is on 0* that score is equal to their career batting average. The rate at which the batting average increases during a player's innings is indicative of how well they capitalise on runs scored up to that point. Might sound complicated but it's really not. Let's look at the graph for the Fab Four since 2017:
https://imgur.com/a/9g22KTN
Our hypothesis looks pretty solid! The averages start at their respective values given in the first table, but it's Kane's average which really takes off at the start of his innings. Between scores of 0 and 6 runs his average increases from 66.7 to 97.7; a massive 31 run leap. Upon reaching just 10 runs he goes on to make a century on average. Compare this to his entire career, where he has needed to make 26 runs before reaching that mark. Clearly he has had more recent success in converting those starts into big scores. What about the rest of the Fab Four? How many runs are needed before they too average a century?

Player	Runs needed to average > 100
Williamson	10
Smith	26
Kohli	20
Root	58

Kane is the clear leader here with half the number of runs required than the second best, Virat Kohli. Smith is not far behind on 26, while Root is a distant last, his poor conversion rate and lack of form not making for pretty reading here. I must stress the purpose of this analysis is not to say that Williamson is "better" than any of his contemporaries, but to simply give some insight into how he has managed to distance himself from the rest of the pack recently, if only temporarily.
Some other interesting observations from the graph. Between scores of 30-50 Williamson, Smith and Kohli all average about the same. Smith's average doesn't increase as much between 50-75, but makes a solid recovery to end up averaging the highest of the bunch after crossing 100. As for Root, well, the less said the better. Mind you, his record is still very good compared to other test players. Finally we can look at Williamson post-2017 versus pre-2017:
https://imgur.com/a/XpnVI0j
The improvement in average during his early innings stage post-2017 is again noticeable, where previously his average had increased much more slowly. Prior to 2017 he needed to make 40 runs before going on to average a century. However you interpret these results, I think we can say fairly confidently that my initial hunch was correct. If anything it highlights Kane's remarkable run of form since 2017 - may it last!
Let me know if there's any other player(s) who you would like me to do the same analysis with! And thanks for reading.

TLDR; using stats to come up with a new model and a new approach to make India a better ODI team
India is the 2nd best ODI team at the moment, and have been the most consistent in the past decade, both in the rankings and in their performance in ICC tournaments.
However, one thing that’s stopped them from crossing that final line to win a tournament is, to an extent: lack of aggressiveness.
Don’t get me wrong, they have adapted well to each country’s conditions, but it is something that separated them from the top teams such as 2015’s Australia or 2019’s England. They don’t seem to be ready to go for the kill and grab every opportunity by the throat. This has definitely improved in the last 4 years thanks to Kohli’s aggressive captaincy, but a slightly defensive mindset seems to have held them back in a number of crucial games, as we’ll discuss.
Firstly, let’s analyse their current approach:

Approach by Powerplay

Chart 1: India’s Batting Averages by Powerplay (2015-)
Chart 2: India’s Run Rates by Powerplay (2015-)

Powerplay 1

In the first 10 overs, India are the most defensive. They rarely lose a lot of wickets, but at the same time, they sacrifice a lot of runs in what is probably an ODI’s most opportunistic phase.
However, if you’ve followed the Indian team over the last four years, the reason for this becomes obvious: a fragile middle-order. Essentially, the openers and Kohli can’t afford to be overly aggressive like a Roy-Bairstow partnership because unlike England, they haven’t had a solid middle order to fall back on. But this is also a result of rather odd selection patterns, and there are ways that they could have done better, and can develop a reliable middle order as we move to 2023, as I will discuss later.
The above charts shows that since India have a rather defensive mindset in the opening stage of an ODI innings, they have a high average but a very low run rate in the first powerplay. Based on other top teams’ averages, like England, normally 50-60 runs are expected in the first powerplay to bring momentum into the middle overs (Powerplay 2).
However, as the charts show, India almost consistently only get 45-50 runs in the first ten overs. That’s 15 runs missed out on while the field is up in the circle, when run scoring should be a lot easier than in the middle overs, where more fielders are outside the circle.
And it isn’t as if in most cases there’s a lot of swing and seam in the first ten which limits run scoring. In ODIs, India is one of the best places to bat in the world, especially under lights. ODI pitches are rarely pace-friendly, which is why pace bowlers have to develop multiple variations, such as the knuckle ball and cutters, to thoroughly succeed in India. Out-and-out speedsters are not very successful in India in ODIs. This is what makes bowlers like Jasprit Bumrah so valuable, who can vary between high-speed bowling, and outstandingly containing death bowling.
So essentially, the run scoring should be more prolific in the first ten overs. And to improve this, the openers need to be more aggressive from the outset. Essentially, a Sehwag-like opener would help them greatly. On that note, let’s discuss India’s openers.
Rohit Sharma and Shikhar Dhawan have been known to be India’s greatest opening partnership ever, and the world’s current-best for a long time. Their approach is generally to build a partnership. Start slowly and gradually accumulate runs and, most importantly, survive for the longest time possible. Survive until around the 25th over, and take off from there. However, this approach often sacrifices 20-25 runs for batting 5 overs extra.
Let’s now compare this to two of the most unique and impactful opening partnerships of the last decade:

• Martin Guptill and Brendon McCullum of New Zealand from 2011-15
  
• Jason Roy and Jonny Bairstow of England since 2015
  

Chart 3: Comparison of these opening partnerships
Brendon McCullum pioneered taking thorough advantage of the first powerplay in the modern era. He took what Jayasuriya, Gilchrist and Sehwag did, and turned it up to an eleven. Martin Guptill is an aggressive batsman anyway, but McCullum took it to another level, especially in the lead up to (and during) the 2015 World Cup. While batting first, these two could put up to 80 runs in the first powerplay and set the team up for a 330+ total easily. While batting second, they could destroy a team’s confidence and kill a 300+ chase in the first 10-15 overs. McCullum wouldn’t often last long, but hit a quickfire 40-70, while Guptill would bat long, and at a strike rate of 85-95, and act as the anchor. They perfectly complimented each other, and could even perform each other’s roles (for example, Guptill’s 93* off 30 balls against Sri Lanka). One of the results of such an aggressive mindset was a particular game where they flattened England during their unbeaten run to the 2015 World Cup final. This aggressive mindset piqued the interest of a certain Eoin Morgan, who later adopted it, which brings us to...
Jason Roy and Jonny Bairstow, the current best opening partnership in ODI cricket. They are in part inspired by the McCullum-Bairstow partnership, but also by the Rohit-Dhawan one. They can bat very aggressively, but can also both play the anchor role when needed, while maintaining a high strike rate (95+) while doing so, often propelling England to massive totals. There is also Alex Hales who opened at first, but transitioned to a number 3 later on, when England wanted to be even more aggressive. This led to them belting the highest total in ODI cricket against an unsuspecting and transitional Australian side. However, they dropped it in 2019, when Hales was banned. However, the idea of Hales at 3 was very risky anyway, as it took up a batsman’s spot, and made the line-up more collapse-prone. So, England didn’t go full-on aggressive mode, they developed a perfect mix of aggressive and defensive mindset, which made them far and away the best ODI team in the last four years.
Maybe India could be inspired by the success of these opening partnerships and adopt a similar model, especially considering it is extremely effective in India, where the next World Cup is to be held?
But then again, they have done better than most teams at scoring in the more tough periods, like the middle overs...

Powerplay 2

As Charts 1 and 2 show, India score at close to 6 an over in the middle overs, and average around 70 consistently in this period. This easily makes them the best team during this period. This furthers my point that even an extra 10 runs in the first ten overs would go a long way in making them a formidable batting force in ODIs. However, one major way they could improve is, obviously, by strengthening their middle order. They are taking steps towards this, with the inclusion of Shreyas Iyer at 4, and slotting KL Rahul in the floating role (usually at 5), but overall, they seem perfectly fine when it comes to the middle overs.

Powerplay 3

This is probably the biggest issue India has had in the last 3 years. As Chart 2 shows, the run rate in this phase in the last 3 years has been 8.15, 7.12 and 7.40. This is pretty poor when it comes to the death. This means an average of 70-80 runs being scored in the last ten overs, where it’s generally expected that 85-90 runs should be scored in this period, especially considering the wickets in hand. At the 40-over mark they’ve generally only lost 2-3 wickets.
This falter in the death is the reason that while India regularly reach 300, they rarely get 350+ (or even 330+) totals. A major reason is the lack of finishers.
Chart 4: India’s Current Batting Approach in ODIs (since 2015)
As Chart 4 shows, the only finishers that India has given a long rope to are MS Dhoni and Hardik Pandya. Of these, Pandya is a very hit-and-miss type batsman, so he will score quickly, but get out quickly as well. He has made a lot of quickfire 20s and 30s, but very few big 50s, and no hundred.
Dhoni has had a very interesting last 4 years. I could go in-depth on how he’s changed, but that’s an essay in itself. At most, I’ll say that it can be split in two phases:

• 2015-2017: Dhoni is the model finisher for India. He can score very quickly at the back-end of an innings, as well as stabilise the innings and get big scores when necessary, at a high strike rate.
  
• 2018-2019: Dhoni’s strike rate falls massively. He can still stabilise an innings very well, and can prevent an all-out collapse, but that’s pretty much all he has going for him. He doesn’t score at a quick rate in the death, and there’s a distinct lack of run scoring in the death. Also, his batting does lower the run rate in the middle overs.
  

The second phase corresponds directly with the low run rate in the third powerplay, as shown by Chart 4. So, the only batter in that lower middle order that can score quickly is Pandya, and the hit-and-miss nature doesn’t allow him to play the finisher role perfectly.
To illustrate what I mean, let’s compare this with New Zealand (2011-15) and England (since 2015):
Chart 5: New Zealand’s ODI Batting Approach (2011-15)
Chart 6: England’s ODI Batting Approach (2015-)
Besides the openers, one distinction you should see is the competent number 4 in both teams. Sure, there’s Joe Root and Kane Williamson, who have played their number 3 roles to perfection. But India has the best number 3 in ODI history, so surely that isn’t a problem. However, look at the stats of Ross Taylor and Eoin Morgan. These are batsmen who are exceptional number 4 batsmen, and, more importantly, can pace their innings’ to perfection. This is what seperates them from Ambati Rayudu, India’s best number 4. As Chart 4 shows, Rayudu has a very low strike rate, which would be average for a number 3, but below average for a number 4. Taylor and Morgan can switch between an accumulator and a big-hitter at will, whereas Rayudu could not. That is why, despite having a great average, Rayudu wasn’t selected for the 2019 World Cup.
Moreover, compare the likes of Ben Stokes to Manish Pandey. Besides the all-rounder advantage, Stokes is an outstanding ODI batsman, and a perfect number 5. I do believe Pandey would make a great middle-order batsman, and could’ve been India’s permanent number 4, but India’s inconsistencies with selection and constant shuffling of his batting position have meant that Pandey has never had a chance to get a good run of form. However, he could definitely play a role in India’s future in ODIs, as we’ll get to later.
But the major difference is between Dhoni and Jos Buttler. Buttler is by far the best wicketkeeper-finisher in the world right now. Chart 6 shows that he has an incredible average and strike rate, which composes the perfect finisher. Dhoni was actually very similar between 2015 and 2017, but the fall in 2018 really showed the difference a great wicketkeeper-finisher makes to an ODI team. Even New Zealand’s team had Corey Anderson and Luke Ronchi, who both played this role well. Dhoni seems to have reverted to a role similar to Grant Elliott, but Elliott was an overs 30-45 type batsman, while Dhoni was supposed to be a 35-50 overs type batsman, so should have had a Buttler-like, or even a Pandya-like strike rate.

New Approach?

Now let’s look at a possible new model India could follow.

Openers

Rohit Sharma is the best ODI opener of the last decade, and thus he is undroppable. So, the idea is that he could play a Roy/Guptill-like role. His strike rate has gone up recently, and so all he needs to do extra is have a higher strike rate (be more aggressive) in the first powerplay.
Shikhar Dhawan is 34, so it’s probably best for India to look forward to 2023 and groom a new opener to perform a Bairstow/McCullum role, and so I’ve made a list of possible options:

• Mayank Agarwal
  
• Ruturaj Gaikwad
  
• Prithvi Shaw
  
• Shubman Gill (he is an opener in domestic cricket, but he could be a backup opener, number 3 or number 4. He should ideally stay around the squad to figure out a perfect role)
  

Chart 7: List A Stats for the above players
I see Prithvi as a perfect like-for-like for Bairstow, including technical flaws (big bat-pad gap, prone to get bowled, little footwork)

Middle Order

Manish Pandey and KL Rahul make great floaters in the middle order, and Rahul’s IPL exploits make him a great finisher, as he demonstrated in the ODIs vs Australia earlier this year. This role could also be fulfilled by Rishabh Pant, who needs to be given an extended run in the side to develop further.
Shubman Gill, as said earlier, can also be a back-up middle order batsman
Hardik Pandya makes the perfect number 7, and fulfils the all-rounder role.

The Batting Order

So, from all this analysis, the ideal top 7 for India for now, with the intention to prepare for the 2023 World Cup, is:

1. Rohit Sharma

2. Mayank Agarwal

3. Virat Kohli (c)

4. Shreyas Iyer

5. Manish Pandey

6. KL Rahul (wk)

7. Hardik Pandya

Reserves: Prithvi Shaw, Rishabh Pant, Shubman Gill
That concludes this analysis. I will do one for India’s bowling too, but in all honesty, their bowling is a lot more settled. Until then, the model essentially is picking four from the following: Ravindra Jadeja, Kuldeep Yadav, Yuzvendra Chahal, Bhuvaneshwar Kumar, Jasprit Bumrah.
Of course there are other bowlers, but I’ll delve into that aspect in a future post.
If you have any input/ideas, do feel free to leave them in the comments, I am open to rational discussion. Also, if you made it this far, any upvotes are appreciated. This took a while to put together.
Thank you for reading!