Fours and Sixes or running for your runs?

[NUFAN]

I've decided to work out which current Test Cricketers make the majority of their runs through 4s and 6s.

I have included batsman who meet the following criteria:

• Average over 25
• have played 15 Test Matches
• have played a Test Match in the past two years

Will the players with the highest percentage of runs through boundaries be the batsman known for their risk taking and the players with the lowest percentage be the grafters?? Lets find out.

C Gayle 67.01
A Flintoff 66.48
V Sehwag 63.48
R Taylor 62.16
Y Singh 62.15
H Gibbs 62.10
Y Hameed 61.10
M Johnson 60.81
U Tharanga 59.75
S Butt 59.21
K Akmal 58.71
S Nafees 58.52
S Malik 57.77
D Smith 57.36
B Haddin 57.27
M Samuels 57.24
I Pathan 57.19
W Jaffer 56.89
B McCullum 56.71
D Bravo 55.76
M Yousuf 55.51
D Karthik 55.08
J Oram 55.07
S Tendulkar 54.88*
VVS Laxman 54.53
N McKenzie 54.35
M Vaughan 54.21
K Sangakkara 54.20
P Patel 54.17
G Smith 53.71
D Vettori 53.68
A Symonds 53.63
D Ganga 53.15
M Sinclair 53.04
H Amla 53.01
F Iqbal 52.83
K Pietersen 52.82
R Sarwan 52.62
T Dilshan 52.62
G Gambhir 52.14
AB de Villiers 51.83
Y Khan 51.63
R Dravid 51.35
M Jayawardene 51.07
R Saleh 51.00
M Boucher 50.27
A Strauss 50.19
M Vandort 49.30
I Bell 49.00
J Kallis 48.95
S Katich 48.62
R Ponting 48.47
P Collingwood 48.05
M Hussey 47.48
S Chanderpaul 47.45
A Cook 47.20
T Samaraweera 46.93
A Prince 46.55
M Clarke 46.07

* Not all of Sachin Tendulkar's fours were recorded, so he is likely to have a slightly higher %
* I only included matches played by their country, so the World XI stats were not included.

 

[Uppercut]

Interesting. Explains why Chris Gayle's strike rate is only 57 when he always seems to be demolishing attacks when he's batting.

 

[Pheobe]

Interesting to see a fair chunk of subcontinental batsmen at the top. Must have something to do with the shorter grounds, lack of fitness or laziness.

 

[NUFAN]

Yep I agree Phoebe, the ground sizes would play a big part as seen by the number of Australians quite low down, but perhaps it's their ability to work the quick singles better?

I was a little surprised to see someone like Ganga up as high as he is and Ponting looks a little low in some ways but then again he does rotate the strike a fair bit.

 

[Uppercut]

You could divide the strike rate by this number and get a measure of how good a player is at rotating the strike.

 

[Pheobe]

You could divide the strike rate by this number and get a measure of how good a player is at rotating the strike.

You mean divide the SR by the % of runs scored by running.

 

[Prince EWS]

You could divide the strike rate by this number and get a measure of how good a player is at rotating the strike.

You mean divide the SR by the % of runs scored by running.

Surely the best way of doing it would be to just subtract all fours and sixes from runs scored and then figure out an adjusted strike rate based on that number.

 

[Pheobe]

Surely the best way of doing it would be to just subtract all fours and sixes from runs scored and then figure out an adjusted strike rate based on that number.

Like this?

Player A - SR of 60. Scores 40% in boundaries. So strike rotation index would be (100-40)/60 = 1.00

Player B - SR of 50. Scores 60% in boundaries. So strike rotation index is (100-60)/50 = 0.80

Player C - SR of 80. Scores 80% in boundaries. So SRI is (100-80)/80 = 0.25

 

[Noble One]

Fantastic analysis Nufan. Really interesting study.

Incredible that the statistics match so closely to the perceived sloggers and perceived grafters. Players such as Gayle, Flintoff and Sehwag are the definition of cricketers who look to score through boundaries. Where Cook, Chanderpaul and Katich will take any run they can. The percentages prove this perception.

Most surprised by Ponting being down the lower end. I would have thought a percentage more around 55.

 

[Richard]

Will the players with the highest percentage of runs through boundaries be the batsman known for their risk taking and the players with the lowest percentage be the grafters??

Pre-find-out I'd have guessed there'd be no great correlation between the two. Boundary-reliant and quick-scoring aren't especially connected.

 

[Pheobe]

Pre-find-out I'd have guessed there'd be no great correlation between the two. Boundary-reliant and quick-scoring aren't especially connected.

More to speak about the upbringing and the nature of grounds.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Like this?

Player A - SR of 60. Scores 40% in boundaries. So strike rotation index would be (100-40)/60 = 1.00

Player B - SR of 50. Scores 60% in boundaries. So strike rotation index is (100-60)/50 = 0.80

Player C - SR of 80. Scores 80% in boundaries. So SRI is (100-80)/80 = 0.25

This would give you strike rates with boundaries removed:

A: 60*(1-0.4) = SR of 36
B: 50*(1-0.6) = SR of 20
C: 80*(1-0.8) = SR of 16

The good technical players should have high figures for that.

 

[Pheobe]

This would give you strike rates with boundaries removed:

A: 60*(1-0.4) = SR of 36
B: 50*(1-0.6) = SR of 20
C: 80*(1-0.8) = SR of 16

The good technical players should have high figures for that.

Or compensate those with ridiculously high boundary percentage. Sehwag and Gilchrist are cases in point.

 

[Uppercut]

This would give you strike rates with boundaries removed:

A: 60*(1-0.4) = SR of 36
B: 50*(1-0.6) = SR of 20
C: 80*(1-0.8) = SR of 16

The good technical players should have high figures for that.

But you also have to remove any balls that a boundary is struck off- because you can't be penalising players for hitting fours and sixes as opposed to boundaries. So taking Chris Gayle:

9508 balls faced- 827 fours- 55 sixes= 8626 balls faced that weren't hit to the boundary
5429 runs scored- 827*4 runs scored in fours- 55*6 runs scored in sixes= 1791 runs scored excluding boundaries

1791/8626*100 gives our boundary-free strike rate of 20.76. Which i imagine would be the lowest of all the batsmen NUFAN listed.

 

[Pheobe]

Why don't we just take the number of dots as a % of total balls faced? I think it will be the best indicator of how willing a batsman is to "run" for his runs.

 

[Arjun]

I've always found hard-running batsmen very interesting, but somehow, they seem to be sidelined most of the time for the big-hitting ones. The fifty-over match is ideal for them, as they can consolidate in the middle-overs, and aggressive running can have more or less the same effect as aggressive hitting.

I've noticed different characteristics over batsmen of different countries. The Australians are known best for hard running between wickets, but they are also very hard hitters of the ball, and when needed, can strike a series of telling blows. One player of interest is Michael Bevan, who's maintained that fantastic average over 50 in limited-overs cricket almost purely by singles, twos and threes, but would struggle when teams would bowl to him like it's a Test match. He was eventually dropped even from ODIs for Mike Hussey, who was also a very capable hitter, and Hussey even made it to the Test team and stayed there.

England is an enigmatic case. They don't have the hardest or most aggressive hitters, so they score most of their runs between the wickets. India is another enigmatic, and at times, a frustrating case. While they look like they score more runs in boundaries, they also play out a great deal of dot balls, especially before the 2000s. They're not cut out to hit massive sixes, so most of them are due to delicate drives or neat cuts. I say frustrating, because we find hard runners like Kaif and VVS Laxman left out for hard hitters like Uthappa and Raina.

Pakistan, on the other hand, score a lot of runs in boundaries, because of their aggressive intent. The Lankans seem to have a good balance of hitters and runners. What amazes me about the West Indians is that though the batting styles differ, all of them are capable of hitting an array of sixes and fours when needed- an example is the ODI series in India in 2002. You don't find a batsman who can't hit a few sixes in the WI team.

South Africa and New Zealand score lots of runs between the wickets, but there's always at least one in each who will go over the top and blast the ball around.

 

[rivera213]

By those stats, Strauss is the most "balanced" batsman which is pretty much my opinion before I saw the list (well, along with players like Mike Hussey who is lower in percentage than I assumed).

Is anyone surprised Flintoff is 2nd on the list?

Nope, me neither. He either gets a boundary or nothing it seems.

 

[oitoitoi]

Interesting to see a fair chunk of subcontinental batsmen at the top. Must have something to do with the shorter grounds, lack of fitness or laziness.

It's because we clever asian kids worked out years ago that hitting the ball far is a lot more fun than running.

 

[rivera213]

It's because we clever asian kids worked out years ago that hitting the ball far is a lot more fun than running.

And it's only coincedence Sehwag, Tendulkar and Yuvraj are, er...... "well rounded"?

 

[irfan]

It's because we clever asian kids worked out years ago that hitting the ball far is a lot more fun than running.

Haha, sooo true.