Batting under pressure (team in trouble): Sachin vs Waugh

[castled]

Batting under pressure (when team in trouble): The main reason why I wanted to do this: I feel that its just our perception how a batsman does under pressure. And I feel that it just depends on the form the batsman in, rather than anything to do with pressure. If they are in form they bat well whether there is pressure or not. Reverse is true when not in form. Sometimes we forget someone coming in to bat when team in trouble and failed, as others do well after that, or bat well but forget that he came in to bat when team in trouble as it led to a comfortable win in the end without any dramas. There have been few discussions on this. Usually using a cut off point and getting the stats, like coming in at less than 1 for 20, 2 for 40 and so on. It gives stats for all the batsmen, but does not give accurate data as there are so many variables involved. So, I wanted to look at couple of batsmen to see how they actually fared when coming in to bat when team in trouble. I asked on this forum about best batsmen batting well under pressure, and Waugh, Inzy, Dravid and Sachin came top of the list. Usually we hear that Waugh bat quite well when team in trouble and Sachin not so. So I looked up all the innings played by these batsmen (Sachins’ until before the start of the Aussie series). Looking at the scorecards, at the articles related to the match to get a feel what went on. The stats using the cut offs like above don’t tell the whole story. What I wanted to consider is; how many times they actually came into bat when team in trouble and how many times they are successful or failed. Same regarding batting when not under pressure, how many times they did well and how many times they failed. Then only we get the complete picture. Obviously this is a subjective analysis, but its just that I wanted to check what they actually did, instead of using arbitrary cut offs. Quite a lot of these innings are obvious, but otherwise used some general guidelines. First one or two wickets can go quickly in the first innings of a match and did not consider it to be a pressure situation. Only what transpires after. Say 2 wickets gone for 20.. then good partnership. That is not really a pressure situation. On the other hand, if another wicket falls quickly then pressure situation. Say number 3 walks in at 1 for no runs and then another wicket goes say 2 for 20. Then number 4 comes in and one batsman (number 3 or 4) fails, that would not go down as failed under pressure. If then the other scores well, he was under pressure and did well. If fails, failed under pressure. Even in the 2nd innings, if the opposition didn’t score much in their first innings, same guidelines. If the opposition scores big in their 1st innings, then obviously quite a bit under pressure even if you lose couple of wickets at 50 or so. Even coming in at 4 for 250 and you team is still behind by more than 300 runs, your team is still in trouble and a pressure situation.. Some innings though seem an easy draw, but under pressure: like losing 4 quick wickets in 3rd innings with only 100 run lead on the final morning. When considering pressure situation, considered the situation of the match only, not pitch conditions etc. As I considered pressure situation only when team in trouble. To give an example, Dravid’s innings in Headingly would not be considered as an innings under pressure. His innings was great given the conditions, but not considered under pressure, as the team was not really in trouble. 4th innings, even if coming at 70 odd for 2, if trying to win or save the save the game, its pressure though not necessarily team in trouble. Scores around 30-50; discretion used whether doing well or failed or average depending on the need to score runs at that stage. I considered scoring above 50 as doing well in all situations. No need to score, usually in the third or fourth innings when match already a definite draw. But if scores more than 50 odd, its playing well under no pressure, but if scores less, it will go under no need to score or average score (doesn’t go under failing to score under no pressure and ignored). The brief figures for Sachin and Waugh. I have all the numbers below as well what I considered innings when team in trouble or no trouble. I do not know how to do a database, to punch in numbers. So just used my calculator for basic analysis. If someone (Bossbhai or Varun are you reading this? Your help appreciated) can create a database with these numbers, we can get different aspects like, wins, draws, against a particular opposition, home or away, 1st,2nd, 3rd or 4th innings etc. Now that I have separated the innings, anyone who wishes can simply look at the particular innings and they can decide for themselves whether it’s a pressure innings or not and change in the table and calculate the numbers again and can come to their own conclusions!! Sachin: Played well when team in trouble 29 out of 84 innings that is 34.5% of times and scored 2732 runs at an average of 101 (2 not outs). Played well when team not in trouble 56 out of 110 innings that is 51% of times and scored 6035 runs at an average of 128 (9 not outs). Waugh: Played well when team in trouble 34 out of 97 innings that is 35% of times and scored 2842 runs at an average of 105 (7not outs). Played well when team not in trouble 52 out of 123 innings that is 42% of times and scored 5318 runs at an average of 177 (22 not outs). It appears to me that these two batsmen did equally well when in a pressure situation. Sachin did well more often when not in a pressure situation. Meaning, compared to how often he does well when not under pressure, he does less well in a pressure situation (compared to himself only). But if you compare with Waugh, he did the same in a pressure situation. Another interesting thing is, when not under pressure Waugh remained not out quite often, and if you compare the average, he doesn’t actually do that well in a pressure situation (again compared to himself only)!!

[castled]

Sachin Tendulkar: Team in trouble: Played well: *may be little trouble/may be not 1. 2nd T 1st I 59 (D) -- A vs Pak* 2. 4th T 3rd I 57 (D) -- A vs. Pak* 3. 9th T 4th I 119* (D) -- A vs. Eng 4. 16th T 2nd I 114 (L) -- A vs. Aus 5. 19th T 2nd I 111 (D) -- A vs. SA 6. 33rd T 3rd I 85 (W) -- H vs. WI 7. 38th T 3rd I 122 (L) -- A vs. Eng 8. 46th T 2nd I 169 (L) -- A vs. SA 9. 54th T 2nd I 139 (D) -- A vs. SL 10. 63th T 3rd I 113 (L) – A vs. Nz 11. 64th T 2nd I 67 (D) -- A vs. Nz * 12. 65th T 4th I 136 (L) -- H vs. Pak 13. 72nd T 2nd I 61 (L) -- A vs. Aus 14. 73rd T 2nd I 116 (L) -- A vs. Aus 15. 73rd T 4th I 52 (L) -- A vs. Aus 16. 75th T 1st I 97 (L) -- H vs. SA 17. 80th T 1st I 76 (L) -- H vs Aus 18. 80th T 1st I 65 (L) -- H vs Aus 19. 84th T 3rd I 69 (L) -- A vs Zim 20. 85th T 1st I 155 (L) – A vs SA 21. 88th T 2nd I 103 (D) -- H vs. Eng 22. 92nd T 2nd I 79 (D) -- A vs WI * 23. 96th T 4th I 86 (L) -- A vs WI 24. 98th T 3rd I 92 (D) -- A vs Eng 25. 103rd T 3rd I 176 (D) -- H vs WI 26. 104th T 3rd I 51 (L) -- A vs NZ 27. 116th T 3rd I 55 (W) -- H vs Aus 28. 122nd T 3rd I 52 (W) -- H vs Pak * 29. 141st T 4th I 56* (W) -- H vs Pak * 2732/27 == 101.1 29 out of 84 innings 34.5% Team in trouble: Failed: 1st T 2nd I. 15 (D -- A vs. Pak 5th T 2nd I 0 (L) -- A vs. NZ 5th T 3rd I 24 (L) -- A vs. NZ 8th T 2nd I 10 (L) -- A vs. Eng 8th T 4th I 27 (L) -- A vs. Eng 12th T 1st I 16 (L) -- A vs. Aus 12th T 3nd I 7 (L) -- A vs. Aus 13th T 1st I 15(L) -- A vs. Aus 15th T 2nd I 6 (L) -- A vs. Aus 15th T 4th I 17 (L) -- A vs. Aus 16th T 4th I 5 (L) -- A vs. Aus 18th T 2nd I 11 (D) -- A vs. SA 20th T 3rd I 0 (L) -- A vs. SA 35th T 4th I 10 (L) -- H vs. WI 36th T 2nd I 4 (W) -- H vs. NZ* 39th T 1st I 24 (L) -- A vs. Eng 43nd T 3rd I 7 (W) -- H vs. SA 44rd T 4th I 2 (L) -- H vs. SA 46th T 2nd I 15 (L) – A vs. SA 46th T 4th I 4 (L) – A vs. SA 47th T 4th I 9 (L) -- A vs. SA 51st T 4th I 4 (L) -- A vs. WI 55th T 4th I 8 (D) -- A vs. SL* 62nd T 4th I 7 (L) -- A vs. Zim 69th T 1st I 18 (D) -- H vs. Nz 72nd T 4th I 0 (L) -- A vs. Aus 74th T 3rd I 4 (L) -- A vs. Aus 75th T 3rd I 8 (L) -- H vs. SA* 76th T 1st I 21 (L) -- H vs. SA 76th T 3rd I 20 (L) -- H vs. SA 81st T 2nd I 10 (W) -- H vs Aus 81st T 3rd I 10 (W) -- H vs Aus 85th T 3rd I 15 (L) -- A vs SA 86th T 2nd I 1 (D) -- A vs SA 94th T 3rd I 8 (L) -- A vs WI 97th T 4th I 12 (L) -- A vs Eng 104th T 1st I 8 (L) -- A vs NZ 105th T 1st I 9 (L) -- A vs NZ T 105T 3rd I 32 (L) -- A vs NZ 107th T 3rd I 1 (D) -- H vs NZ 115th T 2nd I 8 (L) -- H vs Aus 115th T 4th I 2 (L) -- H vs Aus 43. 116th T 1st I 5 (W) -- H vs Aus 44. 123rd T 4th I 16 (L) -- H vs Pak 45. 128th T 2nd I 14 (D) -- A vs Pak* 46. 129th T 2nd I 23 (L) -- A vs Pak 47. 129th T 4th I 26 (L) -- A vs Pak 48. 130th T 2nd I 16 (D) -- H vs Eng * 49. 132nd T 2nd I 4 (L) -- H vs Eng 50. 132rd T 4th I 34 (L) -- H vs Eng 51. 134th T 4th I 0 (L) -- A vs SA 52. 135th T 3rd I 14 (L) -- A vs SA 53. 138th T 2nd I 37 (D) -- A vs Eng * 54. 138th T 4th I 16 (D) -- A vs Eng 55. 113th T 3rd I 8 (L) -- A vs Pak Team not in trouble : Played well: 1. 6th T 1st I 88 (D) -- A vs. NZ 2. 9th T 2nd I 68 (D) -- A vs. Eng 3. 14th T 2nd I *148 (D) -- A vs. Aus 4. 21st T 2nd I 73 (D) -- A vs. SA 5. 22nd T 1st I 50 (W) -- H vs. Eng 6. 23rd T 1st I 165 (W) -- H vs. Eng 7. 24th T 2nd I 78 (W) -- H vs. Eng 8. 25th T 1st I 62 (W) -- H vs. Zim 9. 27th T 3rd I 104 (W) -- A vs. SL 10. 28th T 2nd I 71 (D) -- A vs. SL 11. 29th T 1st I 142 (W) – H vs. SL 12. 30th T 1st I 96 (W) – H vs. SL 13. 34th T 1st I 179 (D) – H vs. WI 14. 34th T 3rd I 54 (D) – H vs. WI 15. 37th T 1st I 52 (D) – H vs. NZ 16. 41st T 1st I 177 (D) – A vs. Eng 17. 41st T 3rd I 74 (D) -- A vs. Eng 18. 43rd T 1st I 42 (W) – H vs. SA 19. 45th T 1st I 61 (W) – H vs. SA* 20. 50th T 2nd I 88 (D) -- A vs. WI 21. 51st T 2nd I 92 (L) -- A vs. WI 22. 53rd T 1st I 83 (D) – A vs. WI 23. 54th T 1st I 143 (D) -- A vs. SL 24. 58th T 1st I 148 (D) -- H vs. SL 25. 59th T 3rd I 155* (W) -- H vs. Aus 26. 60th T 2nd I 79 (W) -- H vs. Aus 27. 61st T 1st I 177 (L) -- H vs. Aus 28. 68th T 1st I 53 (D) – A vs. SL 29. 68th T 3rd I 124* (D) -- A vs. SL 30. 69th T 3rd I 126* (D) -- H vs. NZ 31. 71st T 1st I 217 (D) -- H vs. NZ 32. 78th T 2nd I 122 (W) -- H -- Zim 33. 79th T 1st I 201* (D) -- H -- Zim 34. 82nd T 2nd I 126 (W) -- H vs Aus 35. 83rd T 2nd I 74 (W) -- A vs Zim 36. 87th T 2nd I 88 (W) -- H vs Eng 37. 89th T 2nd I 90 (D) -- H vs Eng * 38. 90th T 2nd I 176 (W) -- H vs Zim 39. 93rd T 1st I 117 (W) -- A vs WI 40. 99th T 1st I 193 (W) -- A vs Eng 41. 102nd T 2nd I 43 (W) -- H vs WI 42. 107th T 2nd I 55 (D) -- H vs NZ 43. 111th T 1st I 241* (D) -- A vs Aus 44. 111th T 3rd I 60* (D) -- A vs Aus 45. 112th T 1st I 194* (W) -- A vs Pak 46. 119th T 2nd I 248* (W) -- A vs Ban 47. 121st T 2nd I 94 (D) -- H vs Pak 48. 122nd T 1st I 52 (W) -- H vs Pak 49. 125th T 1st I 109 (W) -- H vs SL 50. 134th T 2nd I 63 (L) -- A vs SA * 51. 135th T 1st I 64 (L) -- A vs SA 52. 136th T 1st I 101 (D) -- A vs Ban 53. 137th T 1st I 122 (W) -- A vs Ban 54. 139th T 2nd I 91 (W) -- A vs Eng 55. 140th T 1st I 82 (D) -- A vs Eng 56. 142nd T 1st I 82 (D) -- H vs Pak 6035/47 ------ 128 56 out of 110 ---- 51% Team not in trouble: Failed: 1. 2nd T 3rd I 8 (D) -- A vs. Pak 2. 7th T 2nd I 5 (D) -- A vs. NZ 3. 10th T 1st I 21 (D) -- A vs. Eng 4. 17th T 2nd I 0 (D) -- A vs. Zim 5. 19th T 4th I 1 (D) -- A vs. SA 6. 20th T 1st I 6 (L) -- A vs. SA 7. 27th T 1st I 28 (W) -- A vs. SL 8. 31st T 2nd I 6 (W) -- H vs. SL 9. 33rd T 1st I 34 (W) – H vs. WI 10. 38th T 1st I 2 (D) – H vs. NZ 11. 40th T 2nd I 31 (D) – A vs. Eng 12. 42nd T 2nd I 10 (W) – H vs. Aus 13. 44th T 2nd I 18 (L) – H vs. SA 14. 48th T 1st I 35 (D) -- A vs. SA 15. 48th T 3rd I 9 (D) -- A vs. SA 16. 49th T 2nd I 7 (D) -- A vs. WI 17. 56th T 2nd I 23 (D) -- H vs. SL 18. 57th T 1st I 15 (D) -- H vs. SL 19. 58th T 3rd I 13 (D) -- H vs. SL 20. 59th T 1st I 4 (W) -- H vs. Aus 21. 62nd T 2nd I 34 (L) -- A vs. Zim 22. 65th T 2nd I 0 (L) -- H vs. Pak 23. 66th T 1st I 6 (W) -- H vs. Pak 24. 66th T 3rd I 29 (W) -- H vs. Pak 25.67th T 2nd I 0 (L) -- H vs. Pak 26.67th T 4th I 9 (L) -- H vs. Pak 27.70th T 2nd I 15 (W) -- H vs. NZ 28. 71st T 3rd I 15 (D) -- H vs. NZ 29. 77th T 2nd I 18 (W) -- A -- BD 30. 82nd T 4th I 17 (W) -- H vs Aus 31. 84th T 1st I 20 (L) -- A vs Zim 32. 88th T 4th I 26 (D) -- H vs Eng 33. 93rd T 3rd I 0 (W) -- A vs WI 34. 94th T 1st I 0 (L) -- A vs WI 35. 95th T 1st I 0 (D) -- A vs WI 36. 97th T 2nd I 16 (L) -- A vs Eng 37. 106th T 1st I 8 (D) -- H vs NZ 38. 106th T 3rd I 7 (D) -- H vs NZ 39. 108th T 2nd I 0 (D) -- A vs Aus 40. 109th T 2nd I 1 (W) -- A vs Aus 41. 110th T 1st I 0 (L) -- A vs Aus 42. 113th T 1st I 2 (L) -- A vs Pak 43. 114th T 2nd I 1 (W) -- A vs Pak 44. 117th T 2nd I 3 (D) -- H vs SA 45. 118th T 2nd I 20 (W) -- H vs SA 46. 124th T 1st I 22 (D) -- H vs SL 47. 125th T 3rd I 16 (W) -- H vs SL 48. 126th T 1st I 23 (W) -- H vs SL 49. 126th T 3rd I 19 (W) -- H vs SL 50. 131st T 2nd I 4 (W) -- H vs Eng 51. 133rd T 3rd I 14 (W) -- A vs SA 52. 140th T 3rd I 1 (D) -- A vs Eng 53. 141st T 2nd I 1 (W) -- H vs Pak 54. 11th T 1st I 11 (W) -- H vs. SL Steve Waugh: Pressure: played well: 1. T4: I1: 74 (D) -- A vs Nz 2. T10: I2: 71 (D) -- H vs Eng * 3. T12: I3: 49 (L) -- H vs Eng 4. T15: I2: 61 (D) -- H vs Nz * 5. T16: I2: 55 (D) -- H vs Nz 6. T22: I3: 90 (L) -- H vs WI 7. T23: I2: 91 (L) -- H vs WI* 8. T48: I2: 42 (L) -- H vs WI 9. T52: I1: 41 (L) -- A vs Nz 10.T55: I4: 47* (D) -- A vs Eng 11.T57: I2: 59 (W) -- A vs Eng* 12.T63: I2: 45* (L) -- A vs SA 13.T65: I1 64 (D) -- A vs SA* 14.T66: I1 73 (L) -- A vs Pak* 15.T69: I1 94* (W) -- H vs Eng 16.T75: I1 63* (L) -- A vs WI 17.T82: I3 67* (L) -- A vs Ind 18.T84: I1 58 (L) -- H vs WI 19.T89: I1 67 (L) -- A vs SA 20.T89: I3 60* (L) -- A vs SA 21.T92: I1 108 (W) -- A vs Eng 22.T92: I3 116 (W) -- A vs Eng 23.T99: I1 96 (D) -- H vs SA 24.T103: I1 80 (L) -- A vs Ind 25.T104: I2 157 (W) -- A vs Pak 26.T111: I1 96 (W) -- H vs Eng* 27.T113: I1 100 (L) -- A vs WI 28.T114: I1 199 (L) -- A vs WI 29.T123: I1 150 (W) -- H vs Ind 30.T127: I2 151* (W) -- A vs Nz 31.T134: I1 110 (L) -- A vs Ind* 32.T142: I4 67 (D) -- H vs Nz 33.T156: I2 102 (L) -- H vs Eng 34. T168: I4 80 (D) -- H vs Ind 2842/27 == 105.2 34 out of 97 innings 35% Team in trouble: Failed 1. T1: I1: 13 (D) -- H vs Ind 2. T1: I3: 5 (D) -- H vs Ind 3. T2: I2: 8 (D) -- H vs Ind * 4. T2: I3: 0 (D) -- H vs Ind 5. T5: I3: 0 (L) -- A vs Nz 6: T9: I2: 0 (L) -- H vs Eng 7: T9: I3: 28 (L) -- H vs Eng 8: T12: I1: 10 (L) -- H vs Eng * 9: T16: I4: 10 (D) -- H vs Nz 10:T17: I2: 27 (D) -- H vs Eng 11.T19: I2: 0 (L) -- A vs Pak 12.T19: I3: 13 (L) -- A vs Pak 13.T22: I1: 4 (L) -- H vs WI 14.T23: I4: 26(L) -- H vs WI 15.T24: I4: 3 (L) -- H vs WI 16.T35: I1: 16 (W) -- H vs SL 17.T36: I1: 20 (W) -- H vs Pak 18.T39: I1: 25 (L) -- A vs Nz 19.T39: I3: 25 (L) -- A vs Nz 20.T40: I2: 1 (W) -- H vs Eng 21.T42: I3: 14 (D) -- H vs Eng 22.T44: I2: 2 (L) -- A vs WI 23.T48: I4: 4 (L) -- H vs WI 24:T49: I3: 0 (L) -- H vs WI 25:T52: I3: 0 (L) -- A vs Nz 26.T58: I2: 20 (L) -- A vs Eng* 27.T58: I4: 26 (L) -- A vs Eng 28.T63: I4: 0 (L) -- A vs SA 29.T70: I2: 1 (D) -- H vs Eng 30.T70: I4: 0 (D) -- H vs Eng* 31.T71: I4 0 (L) -- H vs Eng 32.T74: I1 15 (D) -- A vs WI 33.T75: I3: 21 (L) -- A vs WI 34.T79: I4: 14 (L) -- H vs Pak 35.T86: I1: 1 (L) -- H vs WI 36.T86: I3: 0 (L) -- H vs WI 37.T88: I2: 8 (W) -- A vs SA 38.T88: I4: 18 (W) -- A vs SA 39.T90: I1 12 (L) -- A vs Eng 40.T90: I3 33 (L) -- A vs Eng 41.T93: I2 4 (W) -- A vs Eng 42.T95: I4 6(L) -- A vs Eng 43.T96: I1 2 (W) -- H vs Nz 44.T96: I3 23 (W) -- H vs Nz 45.T99: I3 17 (D) -- H vs SA* 46.T101: I4 34 (D) -- H vs SA 47.T102: I4 27 (L) -- A vs Ind 48.T103: I3 33 (L) -- A vs Ind 49.T111: I3 8 (W) -- H vs Eng* 50.T112: I1 14 (W) -- A vs WI 51.T113: I3 9 (L) -- A vs WI 52.T114: I3 11 (L) -- A vs WI 53.T116: I1 19 (L) -- A vs SL 54.T121: I4 28 (W) -- H vs Pak 56.T122: I2 5 (W) -- H vs Pak* 57.T128: I2 3 (W) -- A vs Nz 58.T134: I4 24 (L) -- A vs Ind 59.T138: I2 13 (W) -- A vs Ind 60.T142: I2 8 (D) -- H vs Nz 61.T155: I4 14 (W) -- H vs Eng* 62.T156: I4 6 (L) -- H vs Eng 63. T168: I2 40 (D) -- H vs Ind Team not in trouble: Played well 1. T11: I1: 79* (D) -- H vs Eng 2. T13: I3: 73 (W) -- H vs Eng 3. T21: I1: 59 (D) -- A vs Pak 4. T25: I2: 55* (W) -- H vs WI 5. T27: I1: 177* (W) -- A vs Eng 6. T28: I2: 152* (W) -- A vs Eng 7. T30: I2: 92 (W) -- A vs Eng 8. T34: I1: 60 (D) -- H vs SL 9. T34: I3: 57 (D) -- H vs SL 10. T35: I3: 134* (W) -- H vs SL 11. T47: I1: 100 (D) -- H vs WI 12. T50: I1: 62 (W) -- A vs Nz 13. T51: I2: 75 (D) -- A vs Nz 14. T53: I3: 78* (W) -- A vs Eng 15. T56: I1: 157* (W) -- A vs Eng 16. T61: I2: 147* (W) -- H vs Nz 17. T62: I1 164 (W) -- H vs SA 18. T64: I2 86 (W) -- A vs SA 19. T67: I1 98 (D) -- A vs Pak 20. T72: I1 99* (W) -- H vs Eng 21. T72: I3 80 (W) -- H vs Eng 22. T73: I2 65 (W) -- A vs WI 23. T74: I3 65* (D) -- A vs WI 23. T76: I2 200 (W) -- A vs WI +1 24. T77: I1 112* (W) -- H vs Pak 25. T80: I1 131* (W) -- H vs SL 26. T81: I1 170 (W) -- H vs SL* 27. T81: I3 61* (W) -- H vs SL 28. T83: I1 66 (W) -- H vs WI 29. T87: I2 160 (W) -- A vs SA 30. T94: I1 75 (W) -- A vs Eng 31. T97: I2 96 (W) -- H vs Nz 32. T100: I2 85 (W) -- H vs SA 33. T107: I1 112 (D) -- H vs Eng* 34. T109: I1 59 (W) -- H vs Eng 35. T110: I2 122* (L) -- H vs Eng 36. T115: I1 72* (W) -- A vs WI 37. T119: I2 151* (W) -- A vs Zim 38. T125: I2 57 (W) -- H vs Ind 39. T131: I1 121* (W) -- H vs WI* 40. T132: I2 103 (W) -- H vs WI 41. T136: I2 105 (W) -- A vs Eng 42. T139: I1 157* (W) -- A vs Eng 43. T144: I2 90 (W) -- H vs SA 44. T151: I1 103* (W) -- A vs Pak 45. T154: I2 53 (W) -- H vs Eng 46. T155: I2 77 (W) -- H vs Eng 47. T159: I1 115 (W) -- A vs WI 48. T161: I2 100* (W) -- A vs Ban 49. T162: I2 156* (W) -- A vs Ban 50. T163: I1 78 (W) -- H vs Zim 51. T164: I2 61 (W) -- H vs Zim 52. T165: I3 56* (D) -- H vs Ind 5318/30 == 177 52 out of 123 == 42% Team not in trouble: Failed 1. T3: I1: 11 (D) -- A vs Nz 2. T4: I3: 1 (D) -- A vs Nz * 3. T5: I1: 1 (L) -- A vs Nz 4. T8: I1: 6 (D) -- A vs Ind 5. T13: I1: 0 (W) -- H vs Eng 6. T14: I2: 21 (W) -- H vs Nz 7. T18: I1: 20 (W) -- H vs SL 8. T20: I2: 1 (D) -- A vs Pak 9. T26: I1: 12(D) -- H vs WI 10.T32: I1: 14 (D) -- A vs Eng 11.T33: I1: 17 (D) -- H vs Nz 12.T36: I3: 3 (W) -- H vs Pak 13.T37: I2: 17 (D) -- H vs Pak 14.T37: I4: 4 (D) -- H vs Pak* 15.T41: I2: 19 (W) -- H vs Eng 16.T43: I1: 26 (D) -- A vs WI 17.T45: I1: 10 (D) -- H vs WI* 18.T45: I3 20 (D) -- H vs WI* 19.T46: I1: 38 (W) -- H vs WI 20.T46: I3: 1 (W) -- H vs WI 21.T49: I1: 13 (L) -- H vs WI 22.T53: I1: 3 (W) -- A vs Eng 23.T55: I2: 13 (D) -- A vs Eng 24.T66: I3 0 (L) -- A vs Pak 23.T68: I1 19 (W) -- H vs Eng 24.T68: I3 7 (W) -- H vs Eng 25:T71: I2 19 (L) -- H vs Eng 26:T78: I1 7 (W) -- H vs Pak 27:T78: I3 29 (W) -- H vs Pak* 28.T79: I2 38 (L) -- H vs Pak 29.T82: I1 0 (L) -- A vs Ind* 30.T85: I2 26 (W) -- H vs WI 31.T91: I2 0 (D) -- A vs Eng 32.T94: I3 14 (W) -- A vs Eng 33.T95: I2 22 (L) -- A vs Eng 34. T98: I1 7 (W) -- H vs Nz 35. T101: I2 6 (D) -- H vs SA 36. T102: I2 12 (L) -- A vs Ind 37. T105: I1 1 (D) -- A vs Pak 38. T106: I1 0 (D) -- A vs Pak 39. T106: I3 28(D) -- A vs Pak 40. T108: I2 33 (W) -- H vs Eng 41. T112: I3 0 (W) -- A vs WI 42. T115: I3 4 (W) -- A vs WI 43. T117: I2 19 (D) -- A vs SL 44. T118: I1 14 (D) -- A vs SL 45. T120: I2 1 (W) -- H vs Pak 46. T121: I2 24 (W) -- H vs Pak 47. T123: I3 5 (W) -- H vs Ind 48. T124: I1 32 (W) -- H vs Ind 49. T126: I1 17 (W) -- A vs Nz 50. T126: I3 10 (W) -- A vs Nz 51. T127: I4 15 (W) -- A vs Nz 52. T130: I2 26 (W) -- H vs WI 53. T133: I2 15 (W) -- A vs Ind 54. T140: I1 3 (D) -- H vs Nz 55. T141: I1 0 (D) -- H vs Nz 56. T143: I1 8 (W) -- H vs SA 57. T145: I1 30 (W) -- H vs SA 58. T146: I1 32 (W) -- A vs SA 59. T147: I2 0 (W) -- A vs SA 60. T147: I4 14 (W) -- A vs SA* 61. T148: I1 7 (L) -- A vs SA 62. T149: I1 31 (W) -- A vs Pak 63. T149: I3 0 (W) -- A vs Pak* 64. T150: I2 0 (W) -- A vs Pak 65. T152: I1 7 (W) -- H vs Eng 66. T152: I3 12 (W) -- H vs Eng 67. T153: I2 34 (W) -- H vs Eng 68. T157: I2 25 (W) -- A vs WI 69. T165: I1 0 (D) -- H vs Ind 70. T166: I1 30 (L) -- H vs Ind 71. T167: I2 19 (W) -- H vs Ind *may be little trouble/may be not

[castled]

Attention: Bossbhai or Varun: I have no idea how to create a database. May be one of you can put all the above into a database as I have given test match number, innings number, home or away, win, draw, loss, opposition etc. Can do lot of different analysis based on the above numbers. All the members: Its just my subjective analysis. As I separated all the innings, you can look at a particular innings yourself and change it in the tables and calculate the numbers again, to come to your own conclusions.

[Dhondy]

Lot of work went into that, Castled. At the end of it, from your analysis, it's difficult to separate the two. Would you therefore say that your method is no better a discriminator than the much simpler methods Boss and I used in our articles?

[IndianRenegade]

Wow

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[castled]

Lot of work went into that, Castled. At the end of it, from your analysis, it's difficult to separate the two. Would you therefore say that your method is no better a discriminator than the much simpler methods Boss and I used in our articles?

Hi Doc, Mine is just analysis of two batsmen in a particular situation. It shows conclusively (at least to myself) that these two batsmen are inseparable with regard to batting when team in trouble. If I can use this (which I cannot do) for every batsman, then it would again conclusively tell me who is better or not. I will be inclined to agree with you, if Boss crunches the numbers for Sachin and Waugh using your methods, for all the innings they played and see what he comes up with. (Quite a lot of innings and numbers missing in your articles -- I am sure Boss have the numbers, but could only put only few for the purpose of the article -- as those were not just about Waugh and Sachin)

[castled]

Thanks Bossbhai Just mentioned above. Can you do the numbers just for Sachin and Waugh, using all Doc's descriminators for pressure situation and see what you come up with? To convert to a code what I considered a pressure situation... hmm.. as I explained above I just looked at the innings in detail.. so, not sure how I can give parameters.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[castled]

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=26717 but Check the threads in articles section ... there might be one more ... probably done by Shwetabh ... on a different theme Like came in when team was trailing by x amount of runs and then 2 or 3 more wkts fell and stuff like that ... I know its hard to list but just of the top of your head .... But yeah it may not be possible to convert it into code... but just curious.

Actually I decided to do this only after reading that article. I used general guidelines as mentioned above, difficult to put numbers to those. Doc, Do you see my problem. In that article Sachin's innings were 62 (compared to my 84 innings). Even worse with Waugh, only 37 innings (compared to my 97 innings) given.

[fineleg]

Cricinfo Bulletin: http://content-www.cricinfo.com/cbs/content/current/story/335731.html A five-wicket win chasing 160 might seem a comfortable victory but India made hard work of their success at the MCG, grinding out their first triumph of the CB Series with less than five overs to spare. After India's Twenty20 thrashing at the hands of Australia less than a fortnight ago Dhoni said the batsmen had forgotten their individual roles. Similar problems were glimpsed in the 50-over format until Dhoni and Rohit came together. Things were ticking along comfortably at 2 for 89 with Tendulkar and Gautam Gambhir both looking dangerous. Gambhir was caught when Brett Lee surprised him with extra bounce but Tendulkar threw his wicket away by driving Mitchell Johnson to mid-off on 44 as the runs began to dry up. Still, nothing silly was needed as they required less than three an over with six wickets in hand. Unfortunately for India, dot balls do not sit comfortably with Yuvraj Singh and the superb tight bowling of Stuart Clark and Johnson tempted him into folly. Yuvraj did not pick a slower one from Clark and drove to short cover, which left India at 5 for 102 and handed the momentum back to Australia, albeit briefly.

[THX_1138]

DAMN! looks like the database ninjas are on the prowl!

[Dhondy]

Actually I decided to do this only after reading that article. I used general guidelines as mentioned above, difficult to put numbers to those. Doc, Do you see my problem. In that article Sachin's innings were 62 (compared to my 84 innings). Even worse with Waugh, only 37 innings (compared to my 97 innings) given.

Yes, your method is obviously more detailed. BTW, there's a chap called Ananth Narayan on Cricinfo-revels in these kinds of things. He's published a similar analysis on the "most consistent" bowlers- might be worth a read.

[Anakin]

WAT!!!! SRT can play as good as SW under pressure? Now I've heard everything :whatchutalkingabout