T20 WORLD CUP: Bowling Rankings

The T20 World Cup Bowling Rankings contain more good news for England, who have two of the top 3 ranked bowlers, as well as two of the top 3 batters.

Sophie Ecclestone has been quite remarkable once again. When a new bowler comes onto the scene and does well, as Ecclestone did on her ODI debut, taking 2-28 with 3 maidens against the West Indies in 2016, there’s always a nagging doubt that they may be “found out” and slip away as quickly as they’d arrived. But almost 4 years later, Ecclestone is bowling better than ever – she isn’t quite the leading wicket-taker, but no one else in the top 30 is even close on her tournament-leading economy of 3.23.

As with the Batting Rankings, there is an Indian sandwiched between the English players at 1 and 3. Leg-spinner Poonam Yadav missed the lead-up to this tournament with a broken finger on her left (i.e. non-bowling) hand, but she has come roaring back to take 9 wickets and help spin India to a semi-final spot.

Sarah Glenn at 3 is still a relative newbie. Having made her debut against Pakistan at the tail-end of last year, she continued to impress against more challenging opponents in the Tri-Series, and although she came into this World Cup in theory vying for her place with seamer Freya Davies, she has made it impossible for coach Lisa Keightly to consider leaving her out, by just doing her thing, bowling stump to stump, and doing it consistently. (For more on Glenn, read Raf’s interview with her in The Guardian.)

Though Australia remain favourites to win this tournament, the lack of Australian names near the top of the rankings has to be a worry for them going into the knockout stages, with only Megan Schutt scraping into the Top 10 at No. 10. Their batting order is immense, but one day it will fail, and when it does – perhaps in a semi against South Africa or a final against India – it isn’t certain that they’ve got the bowling to get them out of the hole. Some will point out that they’ve been unlucky with injuries, but others might reply that they’ve pushed some young bodies very hard and that’s what happens when you do! (Contrast with how England have held back Lauren Bell, in the hope that she’ll have a 10-year career, not a 10-month one.)

Player Played Wickets Economy
1. Sophie Ecclestone (ENG) 4 8 3.23
2. Poonam Yadav (IND) 4 9 5.56
3. Sarah Glenn (ENG) 4 6 4.25
4. Hayley Jensen (NZ) 4 7 5.21
5. Shikha Pandey (IND) 4 7 5.30
6. Anya Shrubsole (ENG) 4 8 6.07
7. Amelia Kerr (NZ) 4 6 4.62
8. Diana Baig (PAK) 4 6 5.31
9. Shabnim Ismail (SA) 3 5 4.56
10. Megan Schutt (AUS) 4 7 6.60
10. Shashikala Siriwardene (SL) 4 7 6.60
12. Jess Jonassen (AUS) 4 6 5.75
13. Salma Khatun (BD) 4 6 6.45
14. Ritu Moni (BD) 2 4 4.50
15. Dane van Niekerk (SA) 3 4 4.54
16. Rajeshwari Gayakwad (IND) 4 5 6.00
16. Radha Yadav (IND) 2 5 6.00
18. Nida Dar (PAK) 4 6 7.25
19. Udeshika Prabodhani (SL) 4 3 3.68
20. Stafanie Taylor (WI) 3 5 6.21
21. Leigh Kasperek (NZ) 4 5 6.31
22. Aiman Anwer (PAK) 3 6 8.75
23. Georgia Wareham (AUS) 2 3 4.57
24. Sune Luus (SA) 3 3 5.00
25. Afy Fletcher (WI) 3 3 6.10
26. Nicola Carey (AUS) 3 3 6.60
27. Anam Amin (PAK) 3 3 6.75
28. Sophie Devine (NZ) 4 3 6.81
29. Nonkululeko Mlaba (SA) 3 2 4.58
30. Anisa Mohammed (WI) 3 2 4.70

Bowling Ranking = Wickets / Economy

6 thoughts on “T20 WORLD CUP: Bowling Rankings

  1. Readers of this site will not be surprised I’m pitching in on this.
    Wickets / Run Rate is a much better measure than simply Wickets but is it as good as pure Run Rate ?

    Issues with Wickets / Run Rate Include:-
    [1] There are relatively few wickets taken in T20 (over a few matches) so a small change in the numerator has a disproportionate effect
    [2] A bowler could take no wickets but bowl very economically but would score a fat zero on this measure.
    [3] In limited over cricket 150-0 is the same as 150 all out if you are batting 2nd – wickets don’t matter
    [4] To credit a wicket to a bowler often does not reflect the skill of the bowler (how many rank full tosses get caught at deep mid-wicket, how many wickets are taken in the final over with batsmen swinging wildly)
    [5] A wicket is really no more than a dot ball (which is the better last over, one that is made up of 6 dot balls and no wickets or one that goes for 18 but picks up 3 wickets ?)
    [6] According to this measure 20-0-140-15 (measure=2.14) is better than 20-0-10-1 (measure=2.00), in limited over cricket, really ?

    Perhaps the formula needs a bit of a tweak to diminish to a degree the effect of wickets. This could be taken further by using a different factor for ODIs to T20s.

    Despite the above I’m pleased to see we are moving away from simply Wickets to Wickets / Run Rate, and the list you’ve provided seems to reflect what my gut feel says it should in terms of sequence.

    PS: Is it raining yet over there ?


  2. Pingback: T20 WORLD CUP: 5 Gold Stars For England To Take Home | CRICKETher

Comments are closed.