The lucky batsmen, and the post-Australia trend

The lucky willow-wielders
After last week's column, which looked at the lucky and unlucky bowlers in Test cricket, queries came in from readers asking if a similar study could be done for batsmen. It could, it was, and the results are out.

As was done in the case of the bowlers, here too, the numbers were dug out for the total number of deliveries that a batsman wasn't in control of in the period starting from September 1, 2001 (when we started recording ball-by-ball data for every delivery in every Test match). Each ball when the batsman played and missed, edged, miscued or was rapped on the pads added to the not-in-control (NIC) counter (except when the batsman deliberately padded up and was in no danger of being out). Then, the actual number of dismissals was calculated as a percentage of the NIC deliveries - a batsman blessed with more luck would have a low ratio of dismissals-to-NIC deliveries, while a less lucky player would have a higher ratio.

So who's the luckiest of them all? The jury's out, and the winner is Rahul Dravid (among batsmen with at least 1000 Test runs and an average of more than 25 during this period). Out of the 1232 balls when he hasn't been in control, he has been dismissed only 54 times - a percentage of only 4.38. Dravid's in-control percent is high, as you'd expect - it's 84.50 - but what the stat means is that he has got away with the edges and the play-and-misses more often than other batsmen.

Dravid is followed by two Englishmen, Graham Thorpe and Nasser Hussain, and what's noticeable is Hussain's low in-control stat - 76.11%, the lowest among the batsmen in the list. It confirms the image of Hussain as a gritty, determined batsman, but one who seldom looked entirely comfortable at the crease.

At the other end of the spectrum is Mohammad Ashraful, Bangladesh's promising middle-order batsman. Out of his 313 NIC balls, he has been dismissed 46 times, that's a percentage of 14.70. Bangladesh's most successful batsman, Habibul Bashar, is high in that list as well, as are the captains of Sri Lanka and Pakistan. It's also interesting to note that the batsmen who've generally had less luck have also had a higher in-control percentage.

The post-Australia effect
Before Pakistan came to India, it was expected that India would easily romp to victory in the Test series - Pakistan's batting was brittle, they were missing Shoaib Akhtar, and the rest of the bowling wasn't expected to pose too many problems for India's champion batsmen. Halfway into the series, the mood has changed completely, though. Pakistan's resistance has surprised many, but it shouldn't have - they have just toured Australia, and if recent trend is anything to go by, then teams raise their games by a couple of notches after a tour Down Under.

Pakistan's solid performance here is only a continuation of a trend that other teams have shown - India toured Australia in 2003-04 and then went on to beat Pakistan in both the Tests and the one-dayers immediately thereafter. Sri Lanka played a couple of Tests in Australia in 2004, and then went on beat South Africa at home, and draw an away series in Pakistan.

More surprising than Sri Lanka's results, though, were what the minnows Zimbabwe and Bangladesh managed after their tours to Australia. Bangladesh had been to Australia in 2003, and then, in next series, they almost had their first Test win, and were denied only by an Inzamam-ul-Haq special at Multan. Zimbabwe's fortunes had an equally dramatic upswing - in their first Test after their Australian sojourn in 2003-04, they nearly beat West Indies, falling short only because of some stodgy resistance from the West Indian last-wicket pair. Later this year, West Indies themselves are scheduled to tour Australia - here's hoping it sparks a much-needed revival for them.