The Club-10K

Throughout the Cricketing history, 10,000 Test Runs mark has served as an informal certificate of greatness and legendary status for whoever crossed this mark. Still there are a few other acknowledged greats of the game who failed to reach the mark that further adds to the prestige of the accomplishment. From that eagerly anticipated moment of Sunil Gavaskar becoming the first man to break the 10,000 Test runs barrier, it has remained quite an elite club, limited only to a dozen of players out of 2812 players who have ever played a Test match.

10,000 Test Runs Scorers – in the order of appearance

		Player	Debut	Match Date	Time Taken	Mat	Inns
1		SM Gavaskar (India)	6-Mar-71	4-Mar-87	15y 363d	124	212
2		AR Border (Aus)	29-Dec-78	2-Jan-93	14y 4d	136	235
3		SR Waugh (Aus)	26-Dec-85	2-Jan-03	17y 7d	156	244
4		BC Lara (ICC/WI)	6-Dec-90	12-Aug-04	13y 250d	111	195
5		SR Tendulkar (India)	15-Nov-89	16-Mar-05	15y 121d	122	195
6		R Dravid (ICC/India)	20-Jun-96	26-Mar-08	11y 280d	120	206
7		RT Ponting (Aus)	8-Dec-95	30-May-08	12y 174d	118	196
8		JH Kallis (ICC/SA)	14-Dec-95	26-Feb-09	13y 74d	129	217
9		DPMD Jayawardene (SL)	2-Aug-97	26-Dec-11	14y 146d	127	210
10		S Chanderpaul (WI)	17-Mar-94	23-Apr-12	18y 37d	140	239
11		KC Sangakkara (SL)	20-Jul-00	26-Dec-12	12y 159d	115	195
12		AN Cook (Eng)	1-Mar-06	27-May-16	10y 87d	128	229

The latest addition to the distinguished list is Alistair Cook of England who became the 12^th Cricketer in the history to join the prestigious club on May 27, 2016.  Accomplishing it in a career span of 10 years and 87 days, Cook became the fastest player to accumulate 10,000 Test Runs beating the previous best of 11 years and 280 days set by Rahul Dravid. He also became the first English player in 139 years of English Cricketing history to do that. It is a record in itself for the longest wait for any country for any of its players to reach the mark.

Unlike registration of other entrants to the club, Cook’s achievement went less celebrated and was taken more sedately as compared to the others. In terms of silence, it was probably second to only Chandepraul’s instance where it was taken more to admire the resilience of the man and longevity of his career, instead of as an endorsement of his greatness. Unsurprisingly, these are also the only two names in the list whose case of being regarded as a great of the game needs a debate while all others are acknowledged as greats of the game, more or less unanimously.

This observation served as the trigger to look beneath the surface and dig deeper into the stats and facts to figure out why, even after passing the de-facto test of greatness, they still struggle to be placed in the bracket of the greats of the game.

Let’s start with a comparison of batting averages of all those batsmen when they touched the 10K mark.

Batting Averages at the point of crossing 10,000 Test Runs mark

#		Player	Avg @10K	Debut	Match Date	Time	Mat	Inns
1		RT Ponting (Aus)	58.72	8-Dec-95	30-May-08	12y 174d	118	196
2		SR Tendulkar (India)	57.58	15-Nov-89	16-Mar-05	15y 121d	122	195
3		KC Sangakkara (SL)	55.8	20-Jul-00	26-Dec-12	12y 159d	115	195
4		R Dravid (ICC/India)	55.41	20-Jun-96	26-Mar-08	11y 280d	120	206
5		JH Kallis (ICC/SA)	54.37	14-Dec-95	26-Feb-09	13y 74d	129	217
6		BC Lara (ICC/WI)	52.91	6-Dec-90	12-Aug-04	13y 250d	111	195
7		AR Border (Aus)	52.08	29-Dec-78	2-Jan-93	14y 4d	136	235
8		DPMD Jayawardene (SL)	51.96	2-Aug-97	26-Dec-11	14y 146d	127	210
9		SM Gavaskar (India)	51.04	6-Mar-71	4-Mar-87	15y 363d	124	212
10		SR Waugh (Aus)	49.45	26-Dec-85	2-Jan-03	17y 7d	156	244
11		S Chanderpaul (WI)	48.98	17-Mar-94	23-Apr-12	18y 37d	140	239
12		AN Cook (Eng)	46.49	1-Mar-06	27-May-16	10y 87d	128	229

It makes the picture a bit clearer. Although, Alistair Cook has accumulated 10,000 Test Runs within minimum period of time, it has come as the worst batting average among all the players at the time of passing the mark. Not surprisingly, Chanderpaul is the next from the bottom in that list. If the Test batting average of 50 is taken as a benchmark for a batsman, Cook and Chanderpaul clearly fall short while Steve Waugh is found at the borderline.

Should these numbers be sufficient to conclude anything on Cook’s career? How difficult it is for any batsmen to end his career with a better batting average at the end then at 10K mark? Who has done that and to what extent? Stats can help us there as well.

Batsmen who improved their Career Batting Average after 10,000 Test Runs

#		Player	Avg @10K	Career Avg	Avg Diff	Career Runs
1		S Chanderpaul (WI)	48.98	51.37	2.39	11,867
2		SR Waugh (Aus)	49.45	51.06	1.61	10,927
3		KC Sangakkara (SL)	55.8	57.4	1.6	12,400
4		JH Kallis (ICC/SA)	54.37	55.37	1	13,289
5		SM Gavaskar (India)	51.04	51.12	0.08	10,122
6		AN Cook (Eng)	46.49	46.49	0	10,042
7		BC Lara (ICC/WI)	52.91	52.88	-0.03	11,953
8		AR Border (Aus)	52.08	50.56	-1.52	11,174
9		DPMD Jayawardene (SL)	51.96	49.84	-2.12	11,814
10		R Dravid (ICC/India)	55.41	52.31	-3.1	13,288
11		SR Tendulkar (India)	57.58	53.78	-3.8	15,921
12		RT Ponting (Aus)	58.72	51.85	-6.87	13,378

Clearly, Chanderpaul and Waugh lead the list. Probably, because it was easiest in their case. But the two batsmen who stand out in that list are Kumara Sangakkara and Jacques Kallis. Both were scoring at an average of around 55 but then they raised the bar even higher after crossing 10K Mark. No doubt, both of them left the game at a high note and at a point when everyone was convinced that there was more Cricket left in them.

So if we split the careers of all these batsmen in two parts – one before 10K mark and the other after 10K mark – how did they perform in the later part of their career?

Batting Averages after crossing 10,000 Test Runs Mark

#		Player	Avg @10K	Avg after 10K	Avg Diff	Runs after 10K
1		SR Waugh (Aus)	49.45	76.61	27.16	927
2		S Chanderpaul (WI)	48.98	60.9	11.92	1,867
3		KC Sangakkara (SL)	55.8	65.94	10.14	2,400
4		SM Gavaskar (India)	51.04	60	8.96	122
5		JH Kallis (SA)	54.37	57.91	3.54	3,289
6		BC Lara (WI)	52.91	50.25	-2.66	1,953
7		SR Tendulkar (India)	57.58	53.53	-4.05	5,921
8		DPMD Jayawardene (SL)	51.96	44.26	-7.7	1,814
9		R Dravid (ICC/India)	55.41	45.51	-9.9	3,288
10		AR Border (Aus)	52.08	41.2	-10.88	1,174
11		RT Ponting (Aus)	58.72	38.64	-20.08	3,378
12		AN Cook (Eng)	46.49	0	-	42

Steve Waugh’s performance in later part of his career stands out to be phenomenal but it lasted only for 927 more runs. However, Chanderpaul and Sangakkara’s numbers are just exceptional, considering they maintained that rate for quite a considerable period of time after crossing 10K mark.

The other case that stands out, from the bottom though, is of Ricky Ponting. The numbers reveal that he performed even below the average – of acceptable batting average of 40 – in later part of his career and therefore, Australian Cricket was probably justified in helping him expedite his retirement plans.  

Alan Border seemed to have played on probably to take the target for challengers even higher and probably to let the next captain to settle down in the team before he hands over the team to him. In Dravid and Jayawardene’s case, they seemed to have done the right thing in calling it a day when they eventually did. They were clearly struggling to match their own standards set in the earlier part of their careers.

Considering Cook is still in 32^nd year of his life with no reason to retire any time in the near future, it has given birth to some interesting talking points; will Cook be the one to surpass Tendulkar’s record of most Test Runs in career (15,921)? How much time, Tests and innings will it take for Cook to do that? Numbers come to our aide in that case too. If Cook continues at the current pace, this is what is possible.

Alistair Cook – How many more to break Sachin’s Record of most Test Runs?

	10,000	15,921	5,921
Innings	229	365	136
Tests	118	188	70
Years	10	16	6

The numbers trail highlights some other interesting aspects too and we will have a deeper look at them one by one. The first one is to have a look at the players in the vicinity of the mark. Here’s the list of players who are either inching closer or fell short of the mark in the recent years.

Younis Khan looks well on course to be the next player to join the club, provided, he doesn’t find yet another innovative way to disrupt his career.  Ian Bell seems to be struggling with the future of his career already and its still a long way to go for him, so he seems to be out of the race. Next in line are the two South Africans, AB DeViliers and Hashim Amla. They both look on track but probably AB DeViliers may not go the distance and call it a day before reaching there. In rough estimation, he needs to play three more years; possible but not sure if AB will play on for that long. However, Hashim Amla looks almost certain to go the distance.

Younis Khan does not only look on track to be the next Cricketer to hit the mark but he is well in contention to challenge the records of reaching their in minimum innings (195 innings of Lara, Tendulkar and Sanga) as well as in minimum number of Tests (111 Tests of Lara).  He has 9 innings and 7 more Tests to score the remaining 884 runs to equal the respective records.

Younis is already there in International Circuit for 15 years and still has a chance to have a shot at those records, that’s an interesting reflection. He has played 104 Tests in 15 years, that is, roughly 7 Tests a year. On the other hand, Kevin Pietersen managed to play same amount of Tests in only 9 years that is at a staggering rate of 11.5 Tests every year and if he had not retired from the game, he would have played 24 more Tests by now and would have definitely crossed the 10K mark. To put it into perspective, Kevin Pietersen averaged at 47.28 but still managed to accumulate 909 runs, on an average, every year. While Younis Khan with the best average of the lot (53.94) have been accumulating the least amount of runs – 608 runs per year.

That opens up another dimension of discussion. Add to it the fact that among all the Test Playing nations (except Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for obvious reasons), Pakistan is the only country that is still missing representation in the prestigious Club-10K. To have an idea about possible reasons, nothing can be better than to have a look at the top Pakistani batsmen with highest number of Test Runs

Pakistan Players with Highest Matches Per Year Ratio (Qualification: 6,000+ Test Runs)

Player	Span	Years	Mat	Mat/yr	Inns	Runs	Runs/yr	Ave
Inzamam-ul-Haq	1992-2007	15	120	8.00	200	8830	589	49.6
Mohammad Yousuf	1998-2010	12	90	7.50	156	7530	628	52.29
Javed Miandad	1976-1993	17	124	7.29	189	8832	520	52.57
Younis Khan	2000-2015	15	104	6.93	186	9116	608	53.94

The common theme looks to be the low number of Test per year. Only Inzamam managed to play 8 Tests a year, while, the rate for others remained lower with Younis Khan having the lowest Matches per year ratio. That also goes to show the struggle he had to go through to reach to this point.

Numbers don’t mean much until put into perspective. To understand the right weight to this observation is naturally to compare it with the stats of other players and here is how that comparison looks like

Test Players who played Highest Number of Matches Per Year (Qualification: 6,000+ Test Runs)

Player	Country	Span	Years	Mat	Mat/yr	Inns	Runs	Runs/yr	Ave
AN Cook	Eng	2006-2016	10	128	12.80	229	10042	1004	46.49
AJ Strauss	Eng	2004-2012	8	100	12.50	178	7037	880	40.91
ME Waugh	Aus	1991-2002	11	128	11.64	209	8029	730	41.81
KP Pietersen	Eng	2005-2014	9	104	11.56	181	8181	909	47.28
IR Bell	Eng	2004-2015	11	118	10.73	205	7727	702	42.69
MJ Clarke	Aus	2004-2015	11	115	10.45	198	8643	786	49.1
MA Taylor	Aus	1989-1999	10	104	10.40	186	7525	753	43.49
R Dravid	India	1996-2012	16	164	10.25	286	13288	831	52.31
AJ Stewart	Eng	1990-2003	13	133	10.23	235	8463	651	39.54
RT Ponting	Aus	1995-2012	17	168	9.88	287	13378	787	51.85
MEK Hussey	Aus	2005-2013	8	79	9.88	137	6235	779	51.52
AR Border	Aus	1978-1994	16	156	9.75	265	11174	698	50.56
GC Smith	SA	2002-2014	12	117	9.75	205	9265	772	48.25
MA Atherton	Eng	1989-2001	12	115	9.58	212	7728	644	37.69
SC Ganguly	India	1996-2008	12	113	9.42	188	7212	601	42.17
JH Kallis	SA	1995-2013	18	166	9.22	280	13289	738	55.37
G Kirsten	SA	1993-2004	11	101	9.18	176	7289	663	45.27
KC Sangakkara	SL	2000-2015	15	134	8.93	233	12400	827	57.4
DC Boon	Aus	1984-1996	12	107	8.92	190	7422	619	43.65
SR Waugh	Aus	1985-2004	19	168	8.84	260	10927	575	51.06
AB de Villiers	SA	2004-2016	12	106	8.83	176	8074	673	50.46
DPMD Jayawardene	SL	1997-2014	17	149	8.76	252	11814	695	49.84
V Sehwag	India	2001-2013	12	104	8.67	180	8586	716	49.34
BB McCullum	NZ	2004-2016	12	101	8.42	176	6453	538	38.64
VVS Laxman	India	1996-2012	16	134	8.38	225	8781	549	45.97
DI Gower	Eng	1978-1992	14	117	8.36	204	8231	588	44.25
SR Tendulkar	India	1989-2013	24	200	8.33	329	15921	663	53.78
GP Thorpe	Eng	1993-2005	12	100	8.33	179	6744	562	44.66
BC Lara	WI	1990-2006	16	131	8.19	232	11953	747	52.88
Inzamam-ul-Haq	Pak	1992-2007	15	120	8.00	200	8830	589	49.6
SP Fleming	NZ	1994-2008	14	111	7.93	189	7172	512	40.06
SM Gavaskar	India	1971-1987	16	125	7.81	214	10122	633	51.12
S Chanderpaul	WI	1994-2015	21	164	7.81	280	11867	565	51.37
HM Amla	SA	2004-2016	12	92	7.67	156	7358	613	51.45
JL Langer	Aus	1993-2007	14	105	7.50	182	7696	550	45.27
Mohammad Yousuf	Pak	1998-2010	12	90	7.50	156	7530	628	52.29

The list reveals some more interesting facts. Except for Dravid (10.25) and Smith (9.75), there is no other nationality except English and Australian who has played at higher than 9.5 Tests per year rate. That goes to show the advantage players from these countries enjoy in playing most Tests during minimum time. Coincidentally, Alistair Cook tops the list with almost 13 Tests per year – the most ever by any player. That also partially explains how Cook managed to score 10,000 runs in minimum time with worst of batting average. Its pretty simple; his board arranged a better schedule for him.

Test Players who played Lowest Number of Matches Per Year (Qualification: 6,000+ Test Runs)

Player	Country	Span	Years	Mat	Mat/yr	Inns	Runs	Runs/yr	Ave
DG Bradman	Aus	1928-1948	20	52	2.60	80	6996	350	99.94
WR Hammond	Eng	1927-1947	20	85	4.25	140	7249	362	58.45
L Hutton	Eng	1937-1955	18	79	4.39	138	6971	387	56.67
RB Kanhai	WI	1957-1974	17	79	4.65	137	6227	366	47.53
GS Sobers	WI	1954-1974	20	93	4.65	160	8032	402	57.78
PA de Silva	SL	1984-2002	18	93	5.17	159	6361	353	42.97
RN Harvey	Aus	1948-1963	15	79	5.27	137	6149	410	48.41
MC Cowdrey	Eng	1954-1975	21	114	5.43	188	7624	363	44.06
CH Lloyd	WI	1966-1985	19	110	5.79	175	7515	396	46.67
GA Gooch	Eng	1975-1995	20	118	5.90	215	8900	445	42.58
G Boycott	Eng	1964-1982	18	108	6.00	193	8114	451	47.72
M Azharuddin	India	1984-2000	16	99	6.19	147	6215	388	45.03
GS Chappell	Aus	1970-1984	14	87	6.21	151	7110	508	53.86
KF Barrington	Eng	1955-1968	13	82	6.31	131	6806	524	58.67
CG Greenidge	WI	1974-1991	17	108	6.35	185	7558	445	44.72
GR Viswanath	India	1969-1983	14	91	6.50	155	6080	434	41.93
ML Hayden	Aus	1994-2009	15	103	6.87	184	8625	575	50.73
ST Jayasuriya	SL	1991-2007	16	110	6.88	188	6973	436	40.07
Younis Khan	Pak	2000-2015	15	104	6.93	186	9116	608	53.94
IVA Richards	WI	1974-1991	17	121	7.12	182	8540	502	50.23
DL Haynes	WI	1978-1994	16	116	7.25	202	7487	468	42.29
DB Vengsarkar	India	1976-1992	16	116	7.25	185	6868	429	42.13
Javed Miandad	Pak	1976-1993	17	124	7.29	189	8832	520	52.57
CH Gayle	WI	2000-2014	14	103	7.36	182	7214	515	42.18
Mohammad Yousuf	Pak	1998-2010	12	90	7.50	156	7530	628	52.29
JL Langer	Aus	1993-2007	14	105	7.50	182	7696	550	45.27
HH Gibbs	SA	1996-2008	12	90	7.50	154	6167	514	41.95
HM Amla	SA	2004-2016	12	92	7.67	156	7358	613	51.45
S Chanderpaul	WI	1994-2015	21	164	7.81	280	11867	565	51.37
SM Gavaskar	India	1971-1987	16	125	7.81	214	10122	633	51.12
SP Fleming	NZ	1994-2008	14	111	7.93	189	7172	512	40.06
Inzamam-ul-Haq	Pak	1992-2007	15	120	8.00	200	8830	589	49.6
BC Lara	WI	1990-2006	16	131	8.19	232	11953	747	52.88
SR Tendulkar	India	1989-2013	24	200	8.33	329	15921	663	53.78
GP Thorpe	Eng	1993-2005	12	100	8.33	179	6744	562	44.66
DI Gower	Eng	1978-1992	14	117	8.36	204	8231	588	44.25

Here’s the reverse view of the same list that points at some interesting suppositions. If Bradman would have enjoyed a rate of 10 Tests per year, he might have retired with around 24,000 Test Runs by 1950. Simply fascinating. If Sobers had played 9 Tests per year as compared to 4.65 that he played, he would have already scored 16,000 Test runs by 1970s. Even Geoffery Boycott, who once held the record of highest number of Test runs till Sunil Gavaskar surpassed him, played at 6 Tests per year. If he had enjoyed the same rate that is enjoyed by the English players of today, he might have broken the 10,000 Test Runs barrier back in early 1980s. Miandad and Viv Richard’s numbers – not just matches per year but number of Tests, years of career and runs – look intriguingly similar. Hayden and Jayasuria’s matches per year numbers look deflated due to the fact that they initially, remained outside their respective teams after the debut.

Putting these lists of highest and lowest number of Tests per year into consideration, it clearly explains why some of the players, even after falling short of 10,000 Test runs mark, are still regarded as greats of the game while Club-10K now has couple of players, at least, who would always struggle to find their names in the list of greats of the game. In the end, greatness is an endorsement by the viewers not a number from the stats.

Read More

ICC fixing 'the India-Pakistan tie'

ICC has admitted fixing draws of 2017 ICC Champions Trophy to put India and Pakistan in the same group. Although, it had been suspected for some time but this is the first time that the governing body has admitted intentional maneuvering, publicly. 

While explaining the situation, the ICC Chief Executive Dave Richardson said, “No doubt we want to try to put India versus Pakistan in our event, it’s hugely important from an ICC point of view. It’s massive around the world and the fans have come to expect it as well. It’s fantastic for the tournament because it gives it a massive kick.” To achieve this objective, ICC went on to apply a special seeding formula to place India (seeded No 2), South Africa (No 3), Sri Lanka (No 5) and Pakistan (No 8) in one group. Richardson, further, denied that this had a negative impact on the integrity or fairness of the tournament. “What we try and do is make sure that when you add up the rankings of the different groups, they all add up to the same number of points. You can do that in a number of ways. So long as the pools are balanced, it’s silly to avoid [the fixture] when you can fairly cater for it.” [Source: The Telegraph – UK]

"The massive kick", that Richardson has mentioned, clearly points at the financial benefits of such arrangement both for the hosts and ICC. At a glance, it looks to be a win-win for everyone with just a gentle twist of the norms and assumed laws, in fact, looks a noble act of going out of the way to give what the fans as well as the broadcasters and the hosts of the event want. However, in principle, if there is any reason that has forced ICC to facilitate such a fixing of some events in the long chain, it may fuel the curiosity and the questions about similar steps and measures ICC have taken in the past or usually take to facilitate other anticipations, expectations and desires of the fans, broadcasters, sponsors and the hosts.

It would be naivety to assume that the fans, broadcasters, sponsors and the hosts of ICC events manage to limit their wishes and desires only to scheduling of an India-Pakistan match. There are always some other wishful permutations and probabilities as well that majority of the fans, sponsors and the hosts desire for in an ICC event, including the results of the matches and final standings of different teams at the end of the event. 

On the face of it, ICC has done no wrong. But in essence, it has probably violated the very spirit of the game that ICC itself holds dearer to any other thing in the sports. The same spirt that says that the game, its laws and its outcomes carry the highest sanctity and all 'players' must maintain it under all circumstances. Having stretched the rules and norms of the game to accommodate wishes of the few, now, can ICC expect the players not to follow the suit? Why should a player respect the limits defined by the spirit of the game when he sees the governing body itself indulging in 'manipulation and fixing' of things to facilitate some wishes and desires, and also to make some extra money? 

Coincidentally, spot-fixing also stands as 'harmless manipulation and fixing' of few 'events' under the control of 'the player' to facilitate specific 'fans', 'sponsors' and 'the hosts’ that, by definition, does not impact the outcome of a game. Should that also be seen as ‘acceptable fixing’ in greater interest of the game? Hope we are not heading in that direction.  

Its high time for ICC to consider its decisions with the long-term view instead of aiming for short-term monetary and temporary gains. Such out of the box twisting of the norms and practices will only result in short term gains and long term scars. Although, the intentions behind this facilitation are good but it may end up damaging the integrity and grace of the game. It may caste long term doubts on the governance of the game that ICC may not be able to get rid of in the long term. 

Read More

Fawad Alam - The Latest Enigma of Pakistan Cricket

He is deemed unsuitable for ODIs and T20Is because he is more of a Test player but he has played more ODIs (38) and T2OIs (24) for Pakistan than Tests (3). He is seen as someone physically weak and fragile, bound to collapse any time, but he outperforms all contemporaries in the toughest fitness Test.

In a Cricketing encampment where the convenient excuse for under performance has been the changing batting number – although, that excuse was never needed for Younus, Misbah or Azhar Ali – he was asked to open the innings, for the first time in his life, in his very first Test and he became the first Pakistani batsman to score a century on debut away from home. Six years on and he is yet to be considered good enough to play his 4th Test.

That’s Fawad Alam for you and that mysterious territory is Pakistan Cricket. With a First Class average of 56.71 in 125 matches and crossing the 50 mark in 75 times (24 hundreds, 51 fifties) out of 203 innings, he is still made to search for what he can do more to represent his country in Test Cricket.

He can’t play limited overs Cricket because he is a Test player and he can’t play Tests because he has a weak limited overs resume. He doesn’t seem physically fit to play and comes out as the fittest player. It can’t get any more mindboggling than this.

Perhaps, he has become the latest enigma of Pakistan Cricket, a mystery that the Pakistan Cricket Board is either unwilling or unable to resolve.

Read More

Net Ranking of Cricketing Nations

In case of Cricket, ICC’s Rankings stands as the established and indisputable standard to ascertain the standing of any team or a player in a particular format, therefore, its safe to use the same in order to ascertain the overall status of different Cricketing Nations. ICC maintains Rankings of players and teams for each format separately but does not maintain an overall standing or ranking across the formats. There can be a couple of options that can be applied to calculate the overall standings.

Method 1: Comparative Ranking Method

Every team is awarded Comparative Points equal to the number of teams that that team is ahead of in that particular format. Then Comparative Points of a team across all formats is simply added to find out cumulative Comparative Points of each team. Applying this method reveals the following:

About this method, its worth noting that since the ranking is comparative in nature, the more teams a particular team is ahead of, the more Comparative Points 

it will earn. For Example, New Zealand is ranked number 1, currently, in T20 rankings while Australia is ranked number 1 in Tests. But since, New Zealand is ahead of 16 other teams it will earn 16 Comparative Points  while Australia will earn 9 Comparative Points  for being number 1 in Tests. 

Method 2: Cumulative Ranking Points Method

Instead of Rankings which are comparative in nature, Ranking Points earned by each team in ICC Rankings across the formats are simply added to give Total Ranking Points earned by each team across the formats. Applying this method reveals the following:

At a glance, Cumulative Ranking Points Method looks better, however, Comparative Ranking Method has its own strength as it also factors in the competition each team faced to earn its ranking spot. Regardless of the method, the listings tell a pretty common story. Australia, India and New Zealand are the top Cricketing Nations at the moment while, after some fair gap, South Africa and England stands within the band of good competitive teams.

Interestingly, Pakistan still stands at number 6 overall in the world which looks a surprise considering Pakistan's current T20I ranking (7th) and ODI ranking (9th). This goes to show how extra ordinary Pakistan Test side has been as compared to its ODI and T20I sides.

Similarly, this overall ranking tell a different story about the state of Cricket in Caribbean. West Indies just recently became Men's T20 Champions, Women's T20 Champions and Under-19 Champions. However, their performance in Tests and ODIs is nowhere near of being champions; they stand 8th both in Tests and ODI rankings. 

Another overall ranking that catches attention is of Afghanistan. Afghanistan clearly stands at 'Giants amongst the Minnows' and stands at number 10 ahead of Zimbabwe - a Test Playing Nation - that tells a lot about the rapid and solid progression of Afghanistan Cricket. For a Sports desperately struggling for expansion of the game across the game and raising the competitiveness across the teams, the rise of Afghan Cricket is good news. 

Read More

Pakistan Cricket and Competence Debate

To establish a competence and excellence based environment the methods need to be uniform and fair for everyone. The administrators and facilitators should also follow the same path to prominence as the players. Players and administrators are two wheels of the same cart and the cart can fly not when either of them performs at optimum level but only when both of them are in-tune and synchronized with each other. 

After every few years, Pakistan Cricket goes through structural and administrative changes. Almost nearly 20 years now, Pakistan Cricket has been going through such 'drastic' changes ranging from dissolution of board, removal of Chairman, ad hoc setups, captaincy musical chair, appointment of local stalwarts as coaches, induction of foreign coaches, early departures/ removal of coaches, musical chairs of Team Managers, shuffling, disbanding and reformation of selection committee etc etc.

All these changes were carried out with the objective of betterment of Pakistan Cricket but unfortunately, it has yielded everything except betterment of Pakistan Cricket. As a result, Pakistan Cricket has gone down and down with every passing day. In the early stage, it didn't seem to have effect on the performance of Pakistan Cricket, primarily, because the system still had enough supplies in the pipeline from the past that kept Pakistan Cricket afloat till mid 2000s, though not ideally but still with some degree of respectable performances. 

Since then, it has all been a downward slide. Its not that nothing has been tried. In fact, this is the period in which probably the most things have been tried and the least things have looked to work. As a consequence, Pakistan Cricket has found itself in yet another meeting with its close friend of last 20 years, that is, the need for change, revamp and corrections. 

Like always, the objective at this point is also looking to be the same, that is, to fix the issues at the superficial level not at the fundamental layer, change the wrapping not the quality of its content and bring 'drastic' and 'brave' changes to the faces of Pakistan Cricket rather than the system of Pakistan Cricket. 

Like always, the familiar debate has resurfaced. Who should be the coach of Pakistan? Who should be the selectors? Who should be the Chairman? etc. There are countless names going around who all seem to be more than willing to 'serve' the nation by getting hired at the top most level of Pakistan Cricket. That is not only resulting in more supply than demand but also in making the decision of appointment difficult and prone to be criticised by majority as all of the contenders can never be facilitated and as a result there will always be more disgruntled souls than the ones content with the process and result. More than the fans, the most of the noise is also coming from ex-Cricketers and ex-administrators of the game and there is no sign of it to go down in the near future. 

In theory, Chairman of the board, like head of any organization, should be the one to take the most of the responsibility for the performance of the organization he is leading - Pakistan Cricket, in this case - but as funny as it can get, not only the Chairman but the whole of the board administration has been seen to be taking the position that considering the challenges and situation at hand, the Chairman and the board did not only accomplished satisfactory but exemplary and praiseworthy job and its the players who failed not the board. 

Needless to say if such argument and excuse of top executives could have been accepted in any for-profit organization or corporate anywhere in the world. In case, the board administration is neither responsible nor accountable for the primary objective of the board, that is, the performance of the team then nothing worth understanding more than what the administration is responsible and accountable for? What is their mission statement? What are their short term and long term objectives and what is the KPI - Key Performance Indicator - to measure their progress against those objectives? 

Another interesting argument that keeps coming back to haunt Pakistan Cricket is that job related competence, expertise and experience is of least value when it comes to administration of Cricket. It means that the coaches don't necessarily need to have any coaching certification, the selectors don't need to have any experience of the job and to top it all, the Chairman and top officials don't need to be a Cricketer by themselves or need to have any prior experience of running Cricket at any level. In other words, there is no need for any criteria, pre-requisite or screening mechanism to assess the competence, expertise and experience of anyone for any job and anyone is capable of doing any job. 

As irrational and unconvincing as it may sound but let's accept it for a while. There might be some benefits of that. Let's accept for a while the usual argument as well that all over the world, it is not necessary for Cricketers to be the best administrators as playing is one specialised job while administration is another specialised job and the probability of someone specialising both in playing and administrating the game is very low. Let's accept all that for a while and move on.

The point is, if we are following the international standards and norms then why we are failing to deliver in comparison to the same standards? Keeping the on-field performances aside, why Pakistan Cricket administration is failing to groom the players to be the respectable ambassadors of Pakistan and why the administrations is failing to prevent Pakistan Cricket from the usual scandals, controversies and power-tussles within the team? It probably highlights that if you have to adopt the international standards and norms, it will not bring the fruits until it is done in pick and chose manner and we might have to adopt few more of standards and norms of International Cricket. 

First of such norms would be the setting up of a "Cricket Committee" comprising of the most experienced and successful Cricketers the country has produced. The objective of the committee should not be to run Cricket but to assist the administration in aligning their plans and its practicality with the realities of actual experience of playing Cricket at International level. It should serve as the advisory and monitoring body to assist the board in formulating and execution of its plans. 

Then, the next step should be to prohibit the induction of any individual directly at the board or national team level. All competent and interested individuals should come through a system that should start at the grass-root level - whether in Pakistan or outside. Be it the coach, selector, manager, support staff or even Chairman of the board or the administration team, they all must start at the grass-root level and make their way up to the top after spending ample time at every step of the ladder. Whether its progressing through to the top as a Cricketer or as a top professional in any organization, there is no short cut to the top and every individual has to go through a certain growth path and progression process. That's how top Cricketers and top professionals are produced instead of parachuting someone at the top. 

There should be no restriction on anyone to serve Pakistan Cricket in any capacity but to make a lasting impact, they should be asked to follow the same path as a Cricketer himself does. Anyone aspiring for the role of Head Coach of the National team or Chairman of the board should be encouraged by facilitating them to get associated with any of the Cricket administration at the level lower than Pakistan Cricket Team level. Pakistan Cricket Team should not be the test lab or learning project for anyone to experiment. Instead, it should only be given in the hands of people who have already experienced the lower level of Pakistan Cricket and have proved their performance and competence. 

If the objective is the performance and the target is competence then Pakistan Cricket has to follow the already established and successful methods of doing so that are in practice all over the world. But if the objective is just to use the International norms as a convenient excuse to justify and facilitate the incompetence and dominance of opportunists in Pakistan Cricket then it may continue to mark "All-OK" and go back to what they are doing for decades now. But then, the fans and supporters of Pakistan Cricket should not expect any difference of results in the decades to come either.

As they say, you reap what you sow and if you expect oranges from an apple tree, you only have yourself to blame for it. 

Read More

WT20 2016 - Pakistan's Campaign Review

1.   Team Combination

a.     In general, team selection didn’t look up to the mark. From selection of the squad to selection of playing eleven for the matches, there were many things that could have been done in a better way.

b.     Going to India with no big turner of the ball was a mistake. There were 4 spinners in the squad (Afridi, Malik, Imad and Nawaz) but none of them is known for big turn that could have caused difficulty to opponents.

c.      In the game against Bangladesh, going with 3 left arm pacers, 1 left arm spinner and 1 right arm leg spinner against a batting line that had 3 left handers in top 4, didn’t make much sense. Considering the over all composition of the bowling attack, Pakistan should have included a right arm pacer. Had the batting not scored heavily, it might have proved costly mistake against Bangladesh as well.

d.     In the game against India Hafeez batted at number 7 after Imad. If that was part of the plan then Imad should have played in place of Hafeez who could have also been the 3^rd spinner on that pitch.

e.     In game against India, decision to drop Imad made no sense. Pitch reading is always a risk and anyone can make a mistake. Dhoni misread it as well but he didn't take the unnecessary risk by going with 4 pacers. To say the least, it was not a 4 pacers pitch by any means. It looked like Pakistan was hoping the pitch to be pacer friendly rather than reading it with caution. That mistake proved costly for our campaign.

f.       In the game against New Zealand, decision to drop Wahab Riaz instead of Irfan didn’t look right. It looked a slow-ish pitch with not much pace and bounce in it and Irfan’s natural bounce made it even easier for New Zealand batsman to score off him. With his slingy action and skiddy nature of his bowling, playing Wahab on that surface would have been better as it turned out in the game against Australia.

2.   Tactical decisions – batting and bowling orders

a.     Pakistan team planning was depending heavily on toss. Won the toss only against Bangladesh and won only that match. In other matches, they picked the team anticipating them to win the toss and as soon as the toss was lost, it looked like they lost the game and don’t have any plan B to handle the situation.

b.     In general, Pakistan team looked to have gone in with predetermined and predefined plans that lacked the flexibility to change according to the environment and match situation

c.      In the match against India, Sharjeel got out at 7.4 overs and by then, everyone had realized that the pitch is not as flat and it is not suitable for Afridi’s style of play. On that pitch batsmen who play spin well like Hafeez, Malik and Sarfaraz would have done better. Instead of Afridi promoting himself to one-down, Pakistan should have stuck with Hafeez at number 3 and if the innings needed an impetus, it should have been Sarfaraz who should have been promoted up the order. He is in form as well and he scored up the order in Asia Cup as well.  

d.     In the match against Australia, Shoaib Malik should have bowled at least a couple of overs instead of Sami. Sami bowled 2^nd and 5^th over and went for 21 runs in 2 overs and it was clear that he was struggling with his rhythm, line and length.
On the other hand Afridi himself gave away just 27 and Imad went for 31 off his 4. Considering the situation, Afridi should have slipped in a couple of overs from Malik to give him the flexibility of not bowling Sami any more. Pakistan lost by 21 runs and Sami gave away 32 runs in his last 2 overs. Better planning could have resulted in change of result as well.

e.     In the games against New Zealand and Australia where Pakistan was facing mainly left arm spinners and leg break bowlers and our Right Handed Batsmen were struggling to play freely, it might have been worth promoting Imad Wasim up the order to either make use of those angles or force the opposition alter their plans. 

3.   Team atmosphere and Management

Multiple controversies surfaced during the tournament that could have been avoided easily. Those incidents were bound to happen negative effect on the team atmosphere, unity overall moral and focus of the players. Those incidents included:

a)     Afridi’s controversial statement about getting more love in India. The intent looked right but the delivery was disastrous. If there was a diplomatic need for Afridi to use cordial words to ease out the security threats then he should have been briefed by media management team about which words to use. It was complete failure of media management team.

b)    Unnecessary press briefing and media talk of the chairman in the middle of the tournament, especially, talking about the future of the captain and the coach. It would have had only negative effect on the captain and the coach and might have forced them to think about their own future instead of team’s performance in the tournament. It would have served only to distract the focus of the coach and captain from the tournament.

c)     Turning of Imran Khan’s meeting with the team into a public event before the crucial match against India. There was already too much media attention about the match. It would have been in the best interest of the players and the team to stay away from excessive media attention before the match.
In case there were certain reasons and benefits of Imran Khan meeting the team before the match, it should have been kept low key in the media and it should have been done with certain level of privacy.
As it turned out, video leak of the conversation between Imran Khan and Umar Akmal worked as the seed for further media reports of infighting and conspiracies within the team. This could have been avoided.

d)    Waqar’s press conference after New Zealand match was inappropriate. Pakistan was still in the tournament and being the coach he should not have said all those things in public, especially, his taunting statement on Umar Akmal was inappropriate and linked to previous point as well.

e)     On return, team shouldn’t have split and Afridi being the captain of the team should have come with the team. The fact that different players landed in different cities and received different reception is not good for Pakistan Cricket overall. At Lahore airport, players were welcomed with “shame shame” while the captain of the team was welcomed in Karachi with “Zindabad”.
This approach is going to cause serious problems within the players and should have been avoided.

4.   Overall Performance of key players

Shahid Afridi

For some reason, Afridi looked completely lost. His usual confidence was not there and looked like he is just going through the motions not really thinking on his feet and not making decisions according to the situations. Most of the time, it looked like he was just following a predetermined plan and script that was given to him before the match. For example:

-         Playing 4 pacers in Kolkata against India. Pitch reading is always a risk and anyone can make a mistake. Dhoni misread it as well but he didn't take the unnecessary risk by going with 4 pacers. To say the least, it was not a 4 pacers pitch by any means. It looked like someone designed that plan more on weather conditions and even without looking at the pitch, gave the plan to Afridi and Afridi followed it as it is.

-         Then in the same game against India, the decision of Afridi coming to bat at one-down looked a pre-determined one as well that had not taken into account the pitch and match condition which was not suitable for Afridi’s style of batting.

-         In the same game, he did not utilize himself and Malik as the strike bowlers on that pitch. He used both of them as containing bowlers which was not the right approach on that pitch. On the pitch where Ashwin had caused all sorts of problems to Sharjeel right in the 2^nd over of the match, no slip was given to Malik when he came on to bowl to Yuvraj and a catch went exactly through the slips. It was again a case of misreading the game situation.

-         Similarly, against Australia, Sami bowled 2^nd and 5^th over and went for 21 runs in 2 overs and it was clear that he was struggling with his rhythm, line and length. On the other hand Afridi gave away 27 himself and Imad went for 31 off his 4. Considering the situation, Afridi could have slipped in a couple of overs from Malik to give him the flexibility of not bowling Sami any more, but he didn't go to Malik for an over or two as backup plan. He followed the bowling order that looked more like decided before the game not according to the match situation.

Amir

Amir is struggling in the death overs. In the first two games where Pakistan bowled second, Amir had figures of 2/24 in 4 overs and 1/11 in 3 overs. In the last two games where Pakistan bowled first Amir had the figures of 0/41 and 0/39.

More alarming is how many runs he gave away in death overs. Against New Zealand he bowled 17^th and 20^th overs and gave away 11 and 16 runs respectively (2-0-27-0). In the game where Pakistan lost by 22 runs, those runs turned out to be decisive.

Similarly, in the game against Australia, he again bowled 17^th and 20^th overs and gave away 17 and 12 runs (+2 LB) respectively (2-0-29-0).

In the games where Pakistan lost with just 22 and 21 runs respectively, Amir leaking 16 and 14 runs in the last overs is a key area of improvement. He is struggling in death overs of first innings and this should be analyzed and addressed.

Sarfaraz

Sarfaraz has been under-utilized throughout the tournament especially in the game against India where the pitch and conditions suited his style of batting. He was in form and had good scores in Asia Cup, he could have been used better in the middle overs especially to rotate the strike rate and take singles and doubles.

Shoaib Malik

Shoaib Malik’s role in the team needs to be reviewed.

Although he is scoring runs but the lack of his utilization in bowling is causing serious problems with the balance of the team. Especially with M Hafeez not available to bowl, Pakistan needs to get one more all-rounder in Imad or Nawaz in the playing eleven to give it the balance, stability and flexibility.

Malik bowled only 4 overs in the tournament and didn’t bowl a single over against New Zealand and Australia.

Ahmad Shahzad

Ahmad Shahzad played a good comeback innings but he is still struggling to pace his innings.

In all four games, he threw his wicket away and more so because he looked to have run out of ideas to handle the situation.

Although he scored against Bangladesh but against India he had no clue how to deal with that pitch and bowling. Similarly, against New Zealand he played seriously strange innings where he failed to keep the momentum going even after Sharjeel’s start. Against Australia, he picked the wrong place and wrong shot.

It looks like he is either making wrong plans to pace his innings or the role he is being given or explained to him is not right. In either case, he needs to be worked upon.

From technique perspective, he got out to same shot in 2 matches, the new helicopter shot. He is playing it with wrong technique. He should be asked to stop playing it right away or improve it.  

Read More

Pakistan Cricket - A Nursery or Butchery?

Since 2012, in the space of 4 years, Pakistan Cricket team has crashed out before the knock out stage of an ICC event four out of four times. Before that, Pakistan had made it to the Semi Finals of all 6 ICC events between 2007 and 2012.

Failure is the closest companion of any sportsman. Defeats are as much a natural and common outcome as victories. Nothing wrong in getting defeated. What requires attention is the method not the result itself. If you fail less times than being successful, no need to bother much about it. But if failure starts to become your second identity, it warrants an indepth, focused and unbiased self assessment.

What is the main reason of this recent trend in Pakistan Cricket? Is it a case of draught of talent? Is it the case that Pakistan is simply not producing the raw talent any more?
No its not the case. Even during this period from 2012 onwards, many Pakistani youngsters broke into the top scenes and made even International audience notice and applause for their talent and ability. But those rookie performers kept getting fizzled out of the scene and the team, leaving behind the usual names and faces that have stuck to Pakistani team sheets for quite some time.

It only leads to one conclusion. Its not the land that has gone infertile but its the system and setup that has reached to that level that it simply can not re-produce the world beaters any more. To put it into perspective, its not really a case of infertility but more of a case of miscarriage (of talent) due to handling of some 'quack doctors' ( quack administrators in this case).

Just like a wrongly or completely unqualified doctor would always almost end up quaifying as a butcher rather than messiah, the Pakistan board and its patrons are handling the fertility of this Cricket-rich land in the same way. As a result, the reproduction of Cricketing talent has simply stopped.

The Cricket setup in Pakistan is behaving more like a butcher of talent rather than a nurturer and care taker of it. It has to stop before someone else discovers the method in this madness and decides to act earlier than them. 

Read More