New S Rajesh Article On T20: Bangladesh Best Batting Team in the Power Plays, Worst in the Last 6

cricman · #1 June 5, 2009, 12:59 AM

We Average 31 @ nearly 9 an over for the 1st 6 overs, we take advantage of the Field Restrictions very well. Aftabs Stats are even more WOW, reinforces the Idea that he should Open in ODI's to take advantage of the 1st 10 overs.

Our Stats for the last 6 overs is very

, to put it kindly. You Could Attribute it to the lack of hitting ability of the lower order or the inability of the top order to just push the ball around in the middle overs. I think it's the former, we usually have around 5-6 wickets in Hand and just fail to go to big, The Last T20 vs SA & The Unofficial matches vs Aus and NZ reinforces this, did alright vs Lanka.

Need to see the stats for the Middle overs to be sure tho.

P.S there's a Pic of Rajesh on CI now, make some can try some Voodo to make him write nice things about us now.

http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/con...ry/407450.html

Zeeshan · #2 June 5, 2009, 01:09 AM

lol he looks like our boss...with a toupe

RazabQ · #3 June 5, 2009, 01:37 AM

his pic was always available - just not plastered on each "article". Can't say I like the change. I like to save my upchuck until _after_ I read his pieces but gazing at that mug now means I gotta hurl before too!

RazabQ · #4 June 5, 2009, 01:41 AM

On to the point at hand I've always maintained we don't have power hitters - this becomes evident if you look at the type of sixers our players hit. Kapali impressed me with his straight hits in IPL though. Ziaur looks a good prospect in that department too. Of the top 6 only TI can do that.

abu2abu · #5 June 5, 2009, 03:15 AM

Rajesh makes a good point about our lack of firepower in the last few overs. His other stats though are not particularly helpful, there have been too few T20 internationals played for these stats to be of any use.

Oficially BD have never scored more that 166 in a T20 innings, but we easily topped that against Australia earlier this week (not an official T20 International for stats purposes).

I reckon, by the end of this tournament Desh players will be among the most highly regarded...

Rifat · #6 June 5, 2009, 03:21 AM

before you all vent your anger out on him, he speaks the truth!

PoorFan · #7 June 5, 2009, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abu2abu
I reckon, by the end of this tournament Desh players will be among the most highly regarded...

I wish so, and Rajesh should update this stats again will be interesting to see where we stand. We indeed lack late fire power, no doubt.

auntu · #8 June 5, 2009, 04:37 AM

That's true last 6 overs we are not producing enough runs.
In WC matches we need Mithun or Shamsur in those overs if they really have any hitting qualities

MohammedC · #9 June 5, 2009, 04:58 AM

I have one message for Mr Rajesh.

"Please dont blame the weather when India loose"

Neel Here · #10 June 5, 2009, 05:54 AM

^^ he writes on stat only doesn't he ??

Purbasha T · #11 June 5, 2009, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazabQ
On to the point at hand I've always maintained we don't have power hitters - this becomes evident if you look at the type of sixers our players hit. Kapali impressed me with his straight hits in IPL though. Ziaur looks a good prospect in that department too. Of the top 6 only TI can do that.

Yah, Kapali played quite good in IPL.

Purbasha T · #12 June 5, 2009, 06:15 AM

Aftab was the late order big-hitter for us, still wasn't enough. Now his absence made it even worse. Thinking if Shamshur or Mithun should get a chance or not in Ind game!

al Furqaan · #13 June 5, 2009, 08:28 AM

i have come to actually embrace rajesh's methods, although i abhor is generally condescending attitude towards our cricket (but whats new from a indo cricinfo "journalist"?).

interestingly, ashraful has hit some pretty big sixes in his time, including one against windies that was measured at 115 meters. thats 85% of the way to a major league home run!

Kabir · #14 June 5, 2009, 08:37 AM

The article is a master piece - kind of an eye-opener. Good job S. Rajesh.

About Bangladesh - although I know statistically it is proven that we do better in the first 6 overs...I still think our top order lacks the ability to play according to the merit of the game. In fact, I think our lower-order have to compensate for the failure of the top-order in many cases. That's really one of the reasons for lack of lower-order hitting.

BANFAN · #15 June 5, 2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MohammedC
I have one message for Mr Rajesh.

"Please dont blame the weather when India loose"

He will find some stats for that as well.

RazabQ · #16 June 5, 2009, 10:26 AM

@rifat: yes the truth. Like the time he came up with a made up cutoff to show the likes of Jayasuryia and Monty to be the premium SLA and Rafique didn't even make the list. Anyone knows one can "spin" stats. Politicians been doin it for eons. Rajesh brings that same hidden-agenda approach to cricket.

Sayeed Haque · #17 June 5, 2009, 10:28 AM

Could someone please explain the figures? Bangladesh played 10 Twenty20. Each over has 6 legitimate balls. So, first 6 overs should have at least 36 balls. Therefore, in 10 Twenty20 we should have played at least 360 first 6 over balls. Rajesh's figure shows we have played only 325 balls. I can understand why we played so few (208) last six over balls as we only twice completed our full quota of 20 overs (although my calculation says we have played 243 last six over balls). Am I missing something?

Raynman · #18 June 5, 2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sayeed Haque
Could someone please explain the figures? Bangladesh played 10 Twenty20. Each over has 6 legitimate balls. So, first 6 overs should have at least 36 balls. Therefore, in 10 Twenty20 we should have played at least 360 first 6 over balls. Rajesh's figure shows we have played only 325 balls. I can understand why we played so few (208) last six over balls as we only twice completed our full quota of 20 overs (although my calculation says we have played 243 last six over balls). Am I missing something?

I believe the difference is in the shortened matches (the SA match comes to mind from the last tour) where the powerplay overs are reduced accordingly.

Sayeed Haque · #19 June 5, 2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raynman
I believe the difference is in the shortened matches (the SA match comes to mind from the last tour) where the powerplay overs are reduced accordingly.

That was the only shortened match (14 overs). This should not account for 35 balls!
This anomaly makes me question all his previous articles.

Raynman · #20 June 5, 2009, 11:02 AM

I'm taking a guess here that no balls could factor in. They are counted as balls faced even though they are not a legitimate delivery. If thats the case, it is possible he excluded the SA game due to not being the full 20 overs and that brings it to 6*6*9=324+no ball(s).

I'm not going to actually did through the scoreboards to see if there was only one no ball or not in the 9 games during the powerplays but that could be the explanation.

Sayeed Haque · #21 June 5, 2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raynman
I'm taking a guess here that no balls could factor in. They are counted as balls faced even though they are not a legitimate delivery. If thats the case, it is possible he excluded the SA game due to not being the full 20 overs and that brings it to 6*6*9=324+no ball(s).

I'm not going to actually did through the scoreboards to see if there was only one no ball or not in the 9 games during the powerplays but that could be the explanation.

I take your point. It is quite possible that he has left that game out but hard to believe that there was only one noball or wide in 9 games. Anyway, don't have the time to go through the scorecards to prove him wrong. Thanks.

Tintin · #22 June 5, 2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raynman
If thats the case, it is possible he excluded the SA game due to not being the full 20 overs and that brings it to 6*6*9=324+no ball(s).

He may have excluded Kenya game because only the main teams (incl Zim) are included in that list.

Beamer · #23 June 5, 2009, 11:13 AM

We should invite him to BC. I am sure our resident statgurus like T_E and innovation masters like Assad will give him a run for his rupee.

RazabQ · #24 June 5, 2009, 11:16 AM

He speaks the truth! So what if he arbitrarily decides what constitutes a statistical outlier ... I wonder when compiling ODI stats he excludes the Kenya stats when they went all the way to the semis of 2001 WC

Neel Here · #25 June 5, 2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazabQ
@rifat: yes the truth. Like the time he came up with a made up cutoff to show the likes of Jayasuryia and Monty to be the premium SLA and Rafique didn't even make the list. Anyone knows one can "spin" stats. Politicians been doin it for eons. Rajesh brings that same hidden-agenda approach to cricket.

sorry for bothering, could I have a link to that article plz ?

been hearing a lot about s rajesh but haven't had the chance to read his (in)famous articles.