Finally a year with some relief for bowlers?

[Trichromatic]

Batting averages in test cricket each year. If England's contribution to the batting average is removed, overall average reduces to 30.43 which is certainly low. England's average has been 59.16 this year, much higher than their averages in previous years. It's not surprise after they had to face really poor bowling attacks of India and SL. There has been only 1 500+ inning by all teams (except England) and 10 400-499 innings.

Year 	      Teams 	Mat 	500+	% 	400+	%
year 2002 	10	54	19	35.19	38	70.37
year 2003 	10	44	18	40.91	31	70.45
year 2004 	10	51	23	45.10	38	74.51
year 2005 	11	49	13	26.53	32	65.31
year 2006 	9	46	17	36.96	24	52.17
year 2007 	9	31	11	35.48	21	67.74
year 2008 	8	47	10	21.28	26	55.32
year 2009 	9	41	15	36.59	30	73.17
year 2010 	9	43	18	41.86	30	69.77
year 2011 	10	29	5	17.24	14	48.28

[gaurav92]

TFS

[sm332]

this is good news - much rather see 350 being a competitive score than 500+ being brought up easily. Having said that, those averages are gonna go up with India batting in these series - it has been a long time since we racked up some nice big innings.

[Trichromatic]

this is good news - much rather see 350 being a competitive score than 500+ being brought up easily. Having said that, those averages are gonna go up with India batting in these series - it has been a long time since we racked up some nice big innings.

Yes, but I'm expecting Indian bowlers to compensate for those scores by dismissing opposition for relatively lower score. :winky: I haven't seen such a year in long time. All teams are scoring 300-350 at best and bowlers are having good time. Earlier we used to see big scores in India, Pakistan (or UAE), Australia, Sri Lanka. This year we most of the countries haven't produced big scores.

[vamos_rafa]

Batting averages in test cricket each year. If England's contribution to the batting average is removed, overall average reduces to 30.43 which is certainly low. England's average has been 59.16 this year, much higher than their averages in previous years. It's not surprise after they had to face really poor bowling attacks of India and SL. There has been only 1 500+ inning by all teams (except England) and 10 400-499 innings.

Year 	      Teams 	Mat 	500+	% 	400+	%
year 2002 	10	54	19	35.19	38	70.37
year 2003 	10	44	18	40.91	31	70.45
year 2004 	10	51	23	45.10	38	74.51
year 2005 	11	49	13	26.53	32	65.31
year 2006 	9	46	17	36.96	24	52.17
year 2007 	9	31	11	35.48	21	67.74
year 2008 	8	47	10	21.28	26	55.32
year 2009 	9	41	15	36.59	30	73.17
year 2010 	9	43	18	41.86	30	69.77
year 2011 	10	29	5	17.24	14	48.28

I think the bold part is more because England is the only true test team.

[Mariyam]

This is some detailed analysis. Great stuff. :good: Forgive my ignorance, but, 1) You say batting average and you've cited a 30 dashamlag something something number. What is this the average of? All batsmen in the team or across teams in that match? 2) The difference in 2010 and 2011 is just 3 runs. If this is 3 runs per batsman, then the difference is just 30 runs per innings. Does this difference really mean much? It could be that in one of the years a lot of tests were played in/by India and in the other year not many teams toured India and played in bowling friendly wickets.

[Trichromatic]

I think the bold part is more because England is the only true test team.

Yes, they have batted well and their probably England is only team whose modern players can be called test players. For other teams, test batsmen are mostly better ODI and T20 batsmen. Yesterday we saw how on a tough wickets batsmen were going after the swinging deliveries. It was not tough to bat, but they hardly tried to stay there.

[Trichromatic]

This is some detailed analysis. Great stuff. :good: Forgive my ignorance, but, 1) You say batting average and you've cited a 30 dashamlag something something number. What is this the average of? All batsmen in the team or across teams in that match? 2) The difference in 2010 and 2011 is just 3 runs. If this is 3 runs per batsman, then the difference is just 30 runs per innings. Does this difference really mean much? It could be that in one of the years a lot of tests were played in/by India and in the other year not many teams toured India and played in bowling friendly wickets.

1) It's batting average of all teams combined. 2) 30 runs per innings. Like I mentioned earlier, even this average has been bloated mostly by England's big scores. They have won 4 matches by innings this year. Apart from that it has been mostly low scoring games and batsmen have struggled. If we remove England's contribution then average drops to 30 which is what we used to see in 90s.

Year 	        Mat 	Ave 	RPO 	HS 
year 1990 	26	32.03	2.94	653
year 1991 	21	33.66	2.97	671
year 1992 	26	31.57	2.73	580
year 1993 	36	33.12	2.76	653
year 1994 	38	32.55	2.87	593
year 1995 	40	30.1	2.88	692
year 1996 	28	30.67	2.87	564
year 1997 	44	32.49	2.94	952
year 1998 	45	30.13	2.82	633
year 1999 	43	31.41	2.86	621

I always believed that 90s had right balance between bat and ball with almost all teams having two very good/great bowlers and great batsmen. Average drop by 3 or 5 is significant. One can say that this is one year when matches were played mostly in bowling friendly conditions. But SL didn't produce many high scoring games. England has been using more bowling friendly conditions recently to maximize home advantage. In 2007, our batsmen scored big hundreds there and batting was not this tough. SA hasn't changed much. WI was flat during our last tour. But this time Rahul Dravid said that this was one of toughest condition to bat. I hope this remains trend everywhere and even India gives more balanced conditions to take advantage of home matches. NZ and Australia will continue to give batting friendly conditions because they have to ensure that matches are played for all 5 days. Check the run rate.

[Karan114]

England has been using more bowling friendly conditions recently to maximize home advantage. In 2007' date=' our batsmen scored big hundreds there and batting was not this tough.[/quote'] The only hundred scored by an Indian in that series was by Anil Kumble. That said, England's bowling wasn't of the same quality back then that it is now - pitches in 2007 and 2011 weren't all that different.

[Trichromatic]

The only hundred scored by an Indian in that series was by Anil Kumble. Besides' date=' England's bowling wasn't of the same quality back then that it is now - pitches in 2007 and 2011 weren't all that different.[/quote'] I had 2002 in mind.

[Sidhoni]

This is really good to see :two_thumbs_up:

[vamos_rafa]

Yes, they have batted well and their probably England is only team whose modern players can be called test players. For other teams, test batsmen are mostly better ODI and T20 batsmen. Yesterday we saw how on a tough wickets batsmen were going after the swinging deliveries. It was not tough to bat, but they hardly tried to stay there.

I was referring to this: http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1703435&postcount=118

[saneindian]

I am sure our batsmen have pulled that average down by around 3-4 points.

[ganeshran]

Great analysis Vibhash :nice:

[Serani]

With a great attack like england knocking about no wonder batting averages are plummeting!

[Trichromatic]

Cummins, Yadav, Aaron, Ashwin, Philander Great year for some bright prospect. Can this year be turning point for new look of international bowling?

[Trichromatic]

The year of the debutant bowler

If you're a bowler looking to play your first Test match, this might be the best time to take the plunge. Over the last six months, debutants have had a remarkable run with the ball in their first games. Sample this: in the last three months alone, six bowlers have picked up five-wicket hauls on debut. It started with Nathan Lyon's 5 for 34 in Galle against Sri Lanka, and then continued with Elias Sunny of Bangladesh, followed by November's four golden debutants - Doug Bracewell, R Ashwin, Vernon Philander and Pat Cummins. The tally of four in a month equalled the number of such debut performances over 24 months through 2009 and 2010. There have also been other success stories among debutant bowlers, apart from those who've taken five-fors. Pakistan's Aizaz Cheema took four in each innings against Zimbabwe in Bulawayo to finish with match figures of 8 for 103; a couple of Zimbabweans - Kyle Jarvis and Brian Vitori - took five each in the match against Bangladesh in Harare; Sri Lanka's Shaminda Eranga showed plenty of promise too in his opener against Australia, taking four in the first innings and finishing with match figures of 5 for 127. A little before that, in June 2011, Praveen Kumar grabbed his first Test opportunity too, taking three wickets in each innings, and 6 for 80 in the match against West Indies. And then there were a couple of spinners with four-wicket hauls in their opening Tests - Bangladesh's Suhrawadi Shuvo and Devendra Bishoo of West indies. Add up all these numbers and you get a terrific year for the freshmen. In all, debutant bowlers have taken 94 Test wickets so far in 2011 (and the year isn't over yet), at an average of 28.15. That's the most wickets ever taken by bowlers in their first Test in a year, going past the previous best of 83, which was achieved twice - in 1948 and in 1992. There were a couple of highlights in 1948: Hines Johnson, a right-arm fast bowler from West Indies, took 10 wickets on debut, one of only 15 players to achieve this feat in Test cricket so far. And then there was Jim Laker, who announced his talent in no uncertain terms by taking nine wickets in his first game, against West Indies in Barbados. In 1992, the two bowlers who stood out on debut were England's Neil Mallender - 8 for 122 against Pakistan at Headingley - and Richard Snell for his 8 for 157 in South Africa's comeback game against West Indies. Allan Donald took six in that game too, which was his Test debut as well. Two other bowlers also made their debuts in 1992 - less memorably - but then went on to achieve great things thereafter: Muttiah Muralitharan had figures of 3 for 141, and Shane Warne 1 for 150, on their Test debuts. If nothing else, that should make the likes of Michael Beer (1 for 112 on debut) and Nuwan Pradeep (0 for 110) feel a little better about their Test futures.

Most wickets taken by debutant bowlers in a year in Tests 
Year 	Wkt 	Avg 	SR 	5WI/ 10WM
2011 	94 	28.15 	55.3 	6/ 0
1948 	83 	28.02 	68.0 	4/ 1
1992 	83 	33.56 	74.1 	1/ 0
2003 	81 	37.97 	67.8 	5/ 0
2001 	79 	33.50 	67.8 	3/ 0
1965 	77 	24.46 	63.2 	1/ 0
1996 	73 	28.16 	51.2 	3/ 1

A comparison with debut bowling performances over the previous seven years further demonstrates how good 2011 has been to the debutant bowler. In the two previous years, they averaged more than 40 runs per wicket, while in 2004 and 2005, the average topped 50.

Debutants with the ball in Tests in the last eight years 
Year 	Wkt 	Avg	SR 	5WI/ 10WM
2011 	94 	28.15 	55.3 	6/ 0
2010 	60 	44.88 	76.5 	2/ 0
2009 	66 	40.42 	68.9 	2/ 0
2008 	61 	36.60 	60.0 	3/ 1
2007 	55 	27.92 	53.5 	3/ 0
2006 	54 	33.77 	62.6 	1/ 0
2005 	30 	51.03 	83.2 	1/ 0
2004 	37 	50.21 	79.9 	0/ 0

Plenty of bowlers have taken five-fors on debut in 2011, but does that signify much for the rest of their careers? Here's a look back at recent history: the table below lists the career stats of bowlers who took a five-for on debut between 2000 and 2006. (It's recent enough, and it's also at least five years since that performance, thus having allowed for their careers to take shape.) Among the names below, only two are still actively involved in Test cricket. James Anderson has been outstanding as a strike bowler in the last couple of years, especially, while Fidel Edwards remains West Indies' best bet. They've both also added 10 five-fors to their debut performance. Among the other names, the one that stands out is that of Stuart Clark, who did a fine job of taking Glenn McGrath's place in the Australian bowling line-up for a brief period. He took only one more five-for after his debut display, but career stats of 94 wickets at less than 24 apiece are a fair reflection of his class. For the rest, though, the numbers aren't flattering. Four out of the 11 didn't add to their five-for in their first game, while four others managed just one more. A couple of them - Richard Johnson and Shabbir Ahmed - didn't play too many Tests despite pretty good numbers in the matches they played, while Mohammad Sami turned out to be one of the biggest disappointments of the decade for Pakistan. (Click here for the corresponding list in the 1990s: among the 13 names is an Australian called Simon Cook. Full marks to anyone who recalls the name.)

Bowlers who took five-fors on debut in Tests between 2000 and 2006 
Bowler 	Debut match figures 	Career Tests 	Wickets 	Average 	5WI/ 10WM
Naimur Rahman 	6 for 154 v Ind 	8 	12 	59.83 	1/ 0
Mohammad Sami 	8 for 106 v NZ 	35 	84 	52.27 	2/ 0
Andy Blignaut 	8 for 110 v B'desh 	19 	53 	37.05 	3/ 0
Manjural Islam 	6 for 81 v Zim 	17 	28 	57.32 	1/ 0
James Anderson 	5 for 138 v Zim 	63 	240 	30.57 	11/ 1
Richard Johnson 	6 for 100 v Zim 	3 	16 	17.18 	2/ 0
Fidel Edwards 	6 for 90 v SL 	50 	152 	37.00 	11/ 0
James Kirtley 	8 for 114 v SA 	4 	19 	29.52 	1/ 0
Shabbir Ahmed 	8 for 109 v B'desh 	10 	51 	23.03 	2/ 0
Charl Langeveldt 	5 for 96 v Eng 	6 	16 	37.06 	1/ 0
Stuart Clark 	9 for 89 v SA 	24 	94 	23.86 	2/ 0

The numbers above suggest bowlers who start with a bang don't necessarily go on to great things in their careers. However, in 2011 at least, it looks like debutants have far outperformed the rest.

Test bowling stats in 2011   	
             Wickets 	Avg	SR
Debutants 	94 	28.15 	55.3
Overall 	977 	33.68 	66.8

[Trichromatic]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-new-zealand-2011/content/current/player/362541.html Bracewell : Another newcomer makes impression at international cricket. What a performance! :clap:

[Stuge]

awesome performance by bracewell

[Cricket_2_Death]

Indeed, Bracewell was awesome!