In the press conference following India’s loss to England in the 2nd T20 in Guwahati, Indian stand-in skipper Smriti Mandhana said:
“[A] major difference between other teams and our team is running between the wickets.”
Do the stats bear this out?
Looking at T20 cricket only, we can calculate Boundary and Non-Boundary Strike Rates for the “Big 4” teams over the past two years.
| Team | Runs | Balls | 4s | 6s | Boundary SR | Non-Boundary SR |
| India | 3734 | 3224 | 401 | 77 | 432 | 61 |
| Australia | 2685 | 2073 | 351 | 41 | 421 | 62 |
| England | 2672 | 2186 | 313 | 32 | 419 | 67 |
| New Zealand | 3227 | 2616 | 365 | 63 | 429 | 63 |
The numbers show that although India’s Non-Boundary Strike Rate is the lowest of the Big 4, at 61 runs per 100 balls, it is only just less than Australia’s at 62, whilst England have the best Non-Boundary Strike Rate at 67.
On the other side of the coin, India’s Boundary Strike Rate is the best of the Big 4 – basically, they hit a lot of 6s, giving them a Boundary Strike Rate of 432, just ahead of New Zealand’s 429. Conversely, England’s Boundary Strike Rate is the lowest of the Big 4, at 419 – they don’t hit so many 6s!
Overall we can see that whilst these differences aren’t huge, they are at their biggest when you compare India and England. England are seeing the benefits of the back-breaking fitness regime introduced by Mark Robinson 3 years ago, running like badgers between the wickets; whilst India have a more… shall we say… laid back attitude!
(A cynic might note at this point, that England might also be starting to see the drawbacks of their back-breaking fitness regime – it is literally breaking their backs, with no less than 3 players from the contracted squad currently out with stress fractures of the lower back!)
So perhaps what Smriti should have said is:
“[A] major difference between England and our team is running between the wickets.”
But overall though, she is right – this is an area India need to be working on – they’ve already got the hitting – add the running and they could be the world-beaters they long to be.
CRICKETher 
Excellent stuff, as always, Syd.
One point I would make, though, is that the Boundary Strike Rate is quite misleading since, as you point out, it is simply a reflection of the ratio of sixes to fours, amongst the boundaries bowled.
More relevant, to that extent, is that India hit the fewest boundaries per 100 deliveries of any of the Big 4 too: 14.8, compared to 18.9 (Aus), 15.8 (Eng) and 16.4 (NZ). So to that extent, upping their boundary scoring rate would also be appropriate for them.
FWIW (and I am entirely basing this on your figures), even if you take into account their high 6 scoring ration, India score fewer runs in boundaries, per 100 deliveries, than any of the others:
India – 64.1 per 100 balls
Aus – 79.6
Eng – 66.1
NZ – 70.3
So they have not just stamina, but strength to work on as well. At least I think that must be what these figures mean.
LikeLike
Being among the stronger running sides and combining that with hitting fours at a greater rate than the others is what makes England, and to an even greater degree Australia (who hit fours once every six BF since the 2017 WC) stand out.
Several sides (e.g. WI, SA, NZ & IND) hit sixes more often than England and Australia, who both hover around just above average (AUS) and just below average (ENG) in that regard, but they’re not as effective at maximising their scoring on the rest of deliveries.
In relative terms, England and Australia play low-risk, high run-rate cricket when compared with the rest.
SR on balls not hit for six since the 2017 World Cup:
120.03 AUS
115.13 ENG
111.59 NZ
103.97 IND
94.45 SA
92.86 WI
86.41 IRE
85.96 PAK
82.25 SL
77.11 BAN
If AUS & ENG weren’t allowed to hit sixes, and all other sides were allowed to score as normal, then Australia would still be the 2nd highest SR side in women’s T20Is, and England would be 4th.
In this India v England series:
Balls faced per four
India 15.0 (16 fours)
England 7.3 (32)
Balls faced per six
India 120.0 (2)
England n/a (0)
Non-boundary SR
India 51.35
England 64.04
Overall SR
England 109.79
India 79.17
Also point of trivia – the player with the lowest non-boundary SR during this series is Smriti Mandhana (18.18).
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In relative terms, England and Australia play low-risk, high run-rate cricket when compared with the rest.” In terms of hitting sixes maybe, though I don’t agree that England play low-risk cricket overall. Quite the opposite. I’d say they lose too many wickets for that to be true, although haven’t done any analysis on that yet.
LikeLike
Yes I think a few of us find your piece here “interesting” Syd. England always hit lots of fours, for example in the first 2 iT20s against India, they struck a total of 32 to India’s 16, that’s double the fours. And to anyone saying Australia are always the best to watch bat or have the highest strike rate in ODIs I’d point to England’s ODI scores of 378, 366, 377, 373, and 331 in the last few years, the likes of which I haven’t seen from Australia. The Aussies just score in the 240-280 range (invariably a winning score for them) more consistently.
About the injuries. From my very limited knowledge of these stress fracture problems, they are serious injuries, but ones that are built up over a period of time, basically from pushing yourself too hard. These 3 players could be out for up to six months, say, which means they might be coming back in the summer. A single event can trigger the injury, but it’s generally a matter of how quickly the body can fix the emerging injury with rest compared to the rate of (over) work done in exacerbating it. I wouldn’t expect these injuries to occur from fitness regimes, to be honest. In fact, the fitness regimes should, in part, be specifically designed to help prevent this type of injury.
What do all of the 3 affected players have in common? Bowling – this is the likely cause, I would have thought. Too much hard running in and flinging it down in too short a time. Bowling actions put a lot of stress on the back. For example Gordon hadn’t been in the side long and was probably being put through her paces in the nets or whatever, a bit too intensively than what she was ready for. Bowling long match spells could do it too. Elwiss just got through a lot of bowling – 26 overs in 3 ODIs. So whilst I agree that it’s something that could have been foreseen and handled better, it’s probably not as simple as you make out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lots of good points above – totally agree that it is a pretty simplistic analysis of England’s batting; a fairly simplistic analysis of India’s batting; a very simplistic analysis of the job India have in front of them… and a deeply simplistic analysis of England’s injury problems!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: MATCH REPORT: 3rd T20, England v India – “Walk this way…” | CRICKETher