An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

Top Contributors
LIONS then DAYLIGHT

LIONS then DAYLIGHT

Banned
An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

I have long believed that Australia's fortunes in test cricket are heavily influenced by the toss, and whether we bat or bowl first.

This only applies to the period since Warne and McGrath retired - as before they left it didn't matter what we did.

However, since that period a very concerning trend has emerged.

Here are the numbers. (since 01 Feb 2007 - test matchs only)

Australia - Batting first

Played: 22
Won: 15
Lost: 3
Draw: 3
Percentage Won: 83%

When a result occurs, Australia wins 83% of the time.

The only 3 losses were recorded against SA, at Perth, the MCG and Cape Town.

Australia Bowling first

Played: 11
Won: 2
Lost: 5
Draw: 4
Percentage Won (when a result occurs): 29%

This is a worry, basically our fortunes are strongly dictated by the toss. Why? I think it's because when we bat first, we more often then not post a strong total, 400+. Batting first we average 46.4 runs per a wicket, batting second we average 41.91 per a wicket.

Posting a strong total gives something for our bowlers to bowl at, scoreboard pressure. However, without a safety net of 400+ runs behind us we struggle to dismiss teams for a reasonable score, as evidenced by the fact we have more draws batting second.

Discuss?
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

Most teams do better batting first. Australia is no different. It would only really be on real green-tops that batting second might be better (get to use the movement off the pitch earlier, pitch flattens out by the time you bat), and we don't really have any of those in Australia, at least not usually. Gabba sometimes, but it's usually a pretty well balanced pitch. So, Australia plays most of its games on pitches that suit batting first, so it does better batting first. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

Nothing wrong with it, WTF?

Look at the stats, if we bowl first we win 1 in 4 matchs. So in otherwords, if the other team wins the toss and bats then we are up against it.

So basically, our fortunes are dicatated by the toss?

Are you not at all concerned that about that?
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;394632 said:
Nothing wrong with it, WTF?

Look at the stats, if we bowl first we win 1 in 4 matchs. So in otherwords, if the other team wins the toss and bats then we are up against it.

So basically, our fortunes are dicatated by the toss?

Are you not at all concerned that about that?
Click to expand...

Not really. Batting first is almost always a big advantage, especially in Australia, where we play most of our games. That's just how it is. It's not something we can change. Perhaps Australia are more susceptible than most to the perils of batting second, I'd have to see the stats for other teams, but as a general trend, it's normal not to win as many games batting second. That's why it's considered slightly unusual to "send them in".
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

What crap, go and look at the history of the game, the win loss ratio between batting first or second is nearly 50:50.

Steve Waugh used to send the other team in on the basis that you need 20 wickets to win a test match and you might as well "get 10 of them first up".

Sure, those stats I quote above don't include the Cardiff test match. Statistically, those stats are therefore slightly misleading.

The only place where I think batting first is critically important is in India. Basically whoever bats first will get 400+, therefore the team batting first is the only side who has a realistic chance of winning the match. The team batting second has to satisfy themselves with batting out a draw.
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;394688 said:
What crap, go and look at the history of the game, the win loss ratio between batting first or second is nearly 50:50.
Click to expand...
But we're not talking about the history of the game, we're talking about the last two years, where it's more like 60:40.

Regardless, my answer is that it needs more analysis. There are too many variables, particularly given the small sample size. Most notably, the location of the game and the nature of the opposition will have a massive effect on this.

For example, we may have such a poor result batting second merely because we lost the toss a couple more times whilst touring India and were sent in, whilst winning it a couple more when playing poorer sides at home. Although your percentages look stark, there is only a handful of games between the difference.
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;394688 said:
What crap, go and look at the history of the game, the win loss ratio between batting first or second is nearly 50:50.

Steve Waugh used to send the other team in on the basis that you need 20 wickets to win a test match and you might as well "get 10 of them first up".

Sure, those stats I quote above don't include the Cardiff test match. Statistically, those stats are therefore slightly misleading.

The only place where I think batting first is critically important is in India. Basically whoever bats first will get 400+, therefore the team batting first is the only side who has a realistic chance of winning the match. The team batting second has to satisfy themselves with batting out a draw.
Click to expand...

Trying winning bowling first in India pal.
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

Englands record

Batting first
P: 26
W: 10 (4 times put in)
L: 7 (2 times put in)
D: 9 (Inc Abandoned game after 7 overs) (4 times put in)
Won: 59%

Batting 2nd
P: 14
W: 5 (1 time after choosing to bowl first)
D: 7 (4 times after choosing to bowl first)
L: 2
Won: 71%

Which also equals 21 toss wins from 40 matches, truly is 50:50

Toss obviously isnt as important at the places England has played at in the last few years as they lose more when they bat first
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

The biggest problem for Australia is there are too many frontrunners in the batting lineup
North, Clarke, Hughes and Haddin, all more like to perform when the conditions are best and little pressure of batting first than coming in with the side struggling and 3-400 runs behind

Add in Hussey and Ponting getting on in age and there is no one really reliable in the middle order who is always going to knuckle down when the pressure is on

Plus they have the added problem of poor bowlers so gone are the days of cleaning up a team cheaply on day 1 unless conditions are sensational for bowling all day

But of course with the talent in world cricket quite low, when they can get first use of the pitch then they will pile on the runs and know even if they have a bad day, very few teams around the world know how to win and will choke in the 4th innings
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;395069 said:
You did read the last bit of my paragraph didn't you champ?
Click to expand...

Ha. Nope.

Statistically in the last 10 years, regardless of where you're playing, to win batting second is very difficult. Only great sides have the ability to continue to defy the odds such as South Africa on their last tour of Australia or Australia for the last 10 years (besides the recent form).
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;395077 said:
So you think the trend is more than just a statistical blimp, Eddie?
Click to expand...
Yes I do, I provided the England stats and they do better in 2nd innings than 1st because they are fighters, they arent an attacking lineup and struggle a bit when needed to set the game up, but they have batsman who do better when they know the target and they can dig in. Australia has too many attacking batsmen especially in their lower order to dig in and they will throw the bat no matter what the situation

England isnt likely to take a game away from you in the 1st innings, Australia on the other hand are likely if they get a pitch they like to really make you pay and helped by a strong opening partnership. They get going and there is no stopping Australia and their bowlers will keep at it and will not drop their heads whilst they still have a lead, however they can be got on top of very easily when the opposition is batting first

But really batting first for most decent sides is the way to go, runs on the board, allows your bowlers to bowl better because even if a side is 2/200, they might still be 300 behind so the bowlers know a couple of quick wickets and they are still on top, day 1, 2/200 the bowlers would have long lost their way

Of course a few years back the Aussie side was so strong all over then they were always in it, they had a great balanced side, Australia now need another Katich in the middle
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

eddiesmith;395074 said:
The biggest problem for Australia is there are too many frontrunners in the batting lineup
North, Clarke, Hughes and Haddin, all more like to perform when the conditions are best and little pressure of batting first than coming in with the side struggling and 3-400 runs behind
Click to expand...

Hughes has hardly had much opportunity to show what he can do. Definitely unfair to pigeon-hole him already. And from memory, Clarke has a far better second innings record than first innings.
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

BabyBlues;395138 said:
Hughes has hardly had much opportunity to show what he can do. Definitely unfair to pigeon-hole him already. And from memory, Clarke has a far better second innings record than first innings.
Click to expand...
Maybe a little, but his style of play fits in with the others that he smashes everything whatever the situation

As for Clarke, averages 58 in the 1st innings of a match, 45 in the 2nd innings of a match. His 4th innings average is alright at 52, but just 11 innings and 2 not outs

Overall its 55 for games that Australias bats first and 48 when they bowl first and overall he averages 52 in the teams first innings and 51 in the teams 2nd innings

Another interesting stat, he averages 9 in the 5th test match of a series, only played 3 so I assume they are the last 3 Ashes series
 
Re: An interesting trend - Australia don't win test matchs bowling first.

eddiesmith;395142 said:
Maybe a little, but his style of play fits in with the others that he smashes everything whatever the situation

As for Clarke, averages 58 in the 1st innings of a match, 45 in the 2nd innings of a match. His 4th innings average is alright at 52, but just 11 innings and 2 not outs

Overall its 55 for games that Australias bats first and 48 when they bowl first and overall he averages 52 in the teams first innings and 51 in the teams 2nd innings

Another interesting stat, he averages 9 in the 5th test match of a series, only played 3 so I assume they are the last 3 Ashes series
Click to expand...

Sorry, when I said "second innings", I meant the team's second innings (so 3rd or 4th innings overall). Which is true. Generally speaking, 51 in your second dig is better than 52 in your first, taking into account conditions, etc. I dare say most batsmen would average considerably less in their second innings than their first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top