Taking wickets in ODIs and the importance thereof

[Owzat]

England have been ordinary to say the least in ODIs for closing in on two decades now, but why? Is it their obsession with pinch-hitting and trying to find a keeper who can be the next Gilchrist? Is it a lack of a genuine all-rounder? Is it that they don't play enough ODIs and play sides who have more caps between 1-3 of their players than the entire England side combined? Or is it tactical?

I believe England underestimate the importance of taking wickets, thus often relying on batting performances to save them. From 0/2, 48/3 and 121/5 in the 2nd ODI of the current series England reached 237. Captain Cook criticised the batting saying they need to perform, five batsmen scoring between 34 and 46 runs. BUT from a position of having India 29/2 after seven overs England didn't take another wicket. Just SEVEN overs later Bopara was on bowling, India may have already reached 79/2 but England still brought on a trundler who poses little threat early on.

Defending a modest total England needed to take wickets, England captains seem to be obsessed with getting through their fifth bowler allocation, even when the game looks unlikely to last 50 overs. So I have analysed all 105 ODIs England have played or been scheduled to play since the 2007 World Cup

England ODIs by wickets taken since 2007 World Cup

P105 W48 L7 (Tied x3, No Result x7*) = Won 45.71%

*includes two abandoned without a ball being bowled and another not long in.

10 wkts : P33 W27 L5 (Tied x1) = Won 81.82%
9 wkts : P12 W9 L2 (NR x1) = Won 75.00%
8 wkts : P10 W3 L6 (NR x1) = Won 30.00%
7 wkts : P14 W5 L8 (Tied x1) = Won 35.71%
6 wkts : P10 W2 L6 (Tied x0) = Won 40.00%

0-5 wkts : P23 W0 L20 (Tied x1, NR x2) = Won 0.00%
n/a : P3 W0 L0 (NR x3) = Won n/a

Clearly England win most games when they take 9-10 wickets, this is a sizeable sample. 36 of their 48 wins have come when they've taken 9-10 wicket out of 45 ODIs (won 80.00%) compared to 12 in 57 completed ODIs when they've taken 0-8 wickets (won 21.05%)

Duckworth-Lewis/rain has affected 25 of the 102 ODIs England have played, that's a staggering 1 in 4. England have won 14 of the D/L affected matches (Won 56.00%) so can't complain. If you split those to non-D/L

England ODIs (not affected by Duckworth Lewis/rain) by wickets taken since 2007 World Cup

10 wkts : P29 W23 L5 (Tied x1) = Won 79.31%
9 wkts : P7 W5 L2 (Tied x0) = Won 71.43%
8 wkts : P7 W1 L6 (Tied x0) = Won 30.00%
7 wkts : P12 W3 L8 (Tied x1) = Won 25.00%
6 wkts : P6 W2 L4 (Tied x0) = Won 33.33%

0-5 wkts : P16 W0 L16 (Tied x0) = Won 0.00%

So England simply don't take enough wickets, "wickets win matches" is a cliche used regarding Tests but the evidence is there it applies equally in ODIs. When you don't create pressure by taking wickets you let your opponents dictate big totals and you lose, simples. I think some of those wins when taking 6-8 wickets were chasing down quite big totals successfully, two I think against the aussies, but it is the hard way to win an ODI.

So with this evidence, can England really afford not to play five proper bowlers? And indeed can they afford not to play two proper spinners in conditions like you find in India, Sri Lanka etc?

 

[puddleduck]

Nice research, but I think to really draw any conclusions you'd need to maybe draw up equivalent numbers for the most successful team in that period? As obviously if you take 9-10 wickets you're quite likely to win an ODI. Or at least that would seem the most likely.

For example, do India win most of their games due to taking wickets or scoring runs? Does it matter if you bat first or second. For example, batting first, if you lose wickets, often it is a case of making sure you see out the 50 overs. Whilst batting second, with a set target to chase if you lose wickets, there is no point just seeing out the overs once you fall behind, may as well give it a go.

I would suggest, the biggest indication of England's weakness with their extra bowlers comes in the form of their 30% win rate despite taking 8 wickets. Surely, reducing a team to 8 down should more often than not be a strong position, definitely not one from which a team beats you 70% of the time!

Another area to investigate would be how many bowlers are played in the games they took 9-10 wickets. Was this at home? Were these batting first or second? If batting first, how often did England score over 275? Etc...

 

[angryangy]

Early wickets are great and generally any taken in the first three quarters of a one day innings go a long way to dumping pressure on the remaining batsmen. After that, "momentum" tends to take over. It's not that this mysterious force actually has effects, but that the batting side has done enough work that it's very hard for them to undo it.

India supplied some textbook examples of this in the World Cup. They failed to bat out their overs against England, South Africa and the West Indies, yet they only lost one of these games. Debate the merit of the tie if you will, but what team has any right to such close games after getting bowled out on a batsman's pitch? The fact is that in each case they'd managed to do enough of the job before collapsing to make for two close contests and an utter thrashing in their favour.

In terms of England, I'd wager they probably lean towards giving away too many wickets more than failing to get them. Of course, it's very concurrent; if you can score lots of runs, you can bully your opposition into giving you wickets.