More On The Spinners In The First Three Tests
This is a short follow up to yesterday’s post On The Spinners In The First Three Tests. You should probably read that first if you haven’t yet.
Continuing on the theme of length, I looked at how each team scored against two types of lengths from the spinners. First, against what might generally be regarded as “good” length (3-6 metres), then England’s batsmen have managed 600/44 in the series, scoring at 2.66 runs per over. India’s batsmen have achieved 626/32 in the series against this length, scoring at 3.14 runs per over. Most the difference lies in the number of boundaries scored. India’s batsmen have taken 72 boundaries (53 fours and 19 sixers) from the 1273 balls they’ve faced on a good length, while England’s batsmen have taken 61 boundaries (50 fours and 11 sixers) in 1414 balls they’ve faced on a good length.
If you now consider what might be called “bad length” (either too full or too short) for a spinner, then India’s batsmen have again been less forgiving than England’s. They scored 39 boundaries (all fours) in 212 balls on a bad length, and taken 6.5 runs per over overall from these. England batsmen have scored 13 boundaries (all fours) in 130 balls on a bad length and scored at 4.34 runs per over overall from these.
If we exclude the 1st Test of the series, the over the 2nd and 3rd Tests of the series, the difference becomes even starker. In the 2nd and third Test, England scored 332/32 in 869 balls (23 fours and 7 sixers) on a good length, while India’s batsmen scored 420/23 in 877 balls (37 fours and 11 sixers) on a good length. England managed 2.3 runs per over, while India managed 3.1 when England bowled it on a good length.
When the bowlers missed the good length in the 2nd and 3rd Tests, India’s batsmen made hay, scoring 1/128 in 130 balls (19 fours, 0 sixers), to England’s 2/54 in 77 balls (7 fours and 0 sixers).
Even if we exclude Rohit Sharma who was the stand out rungetter in the 2nd and 3rd Tests (3/122 in 237 good length balls with 11 fours and 2 sixers, and 0/38 in 41 bad length balls with 5 fours), the rest of the Indian batting combined to do better than the English batting.
England’s problem has not been only that they are not able to score from or survive the good length as well as the Indian batsmen. That problem might not have been fatal if their bowlers had been more accurate than the Indian bowlers. As it happens, England’s spinners have been significantly less accurate than the Indian spinners even after dropping Dom Bess. In the 2nd and 3rd Tests, England’s batsmen have faced 77 bad length deliveries and 869 good length deliveries - that’s 11.3 good length balls for each bad length ball. India’s batsmen have faced 130 bad length deliveries for 877 good length deliveries - that’s 6.7 good length balls for each bad length ball.
Margins or 10 wickets and 317 runs make a lot of sense now. They reflect the gap in the quality of batting and bowling available to each side for these conditions.
England’s bowlers have offered bad balls more frequently (nearly twice as often) to India’s batsmen than India’s bowlers have offered them to England’s batsmen.
India’s batsmen have taken heavier toll of the bad balls when England’s bowlers have offered them, than England’s batsmen have when India’s bowlers have offered them.
And finally, India’s batsmen have played the good balls better than England’s batsmen too.