The cutting edge, and the Lara factor

The square-cut stars
After checking out the cover-drivers and the defenders, this week's column examines the exponents of the square-cut. As in the study on cover-drivers, this analysis too places a premium on the average runs scored per dismissal when executing this stroke. Using this criterion for batsmen who have scored at least 200 runs from the square-cut in Tests since September 2001 (when Wisden Cricinfo began recording ball-by-ball data for every delivery bowled in international matches), the player who comes out on top of the list is Adam Gilchrist, with 283 runs and only one dismissal, giving him an outstanding average. Gilchrist plays most strokes exceedingly well, but his execution of the square-cut is particularly impressive for the manner in which he is able to latch on to even a fractional error in length, plundering runs off deliveries that most batsmen would be content to defend off the back foot. And the fact that he's only been dismissed once while playing it is a tribute to his judgement and his hand-eye coordination.

The next few slots are occupied by classy strokeplayers as well: Michael Vaughan, Mahela Jayawardene and Ramnaresh Sarwan have a higher strike rate than Gilchrist, while Marvan Atapattu's version, a rasping shot with a particularly exaggerated but lovely follow-through, gives him a high average and an excellent scoring rate.

Atapattu's strike rate of 179.67 is impressive, but it isn't the best. That honour goes to Chris Gayle, whose square-cut is rather less pleasing to the eye, but probably more demoralising for the bowler. Sanath Jayasuriya, another in the Gayle mould, is in the top five as well, while Kumar Sangakkara doesn't hit them with as much raw power, but as the strike rate of 195 shows, it's a mighty effective stroke for him.

And if the sorting is done slightly differently, then another Australian legend heads the list. The square-cut was clearly a favourite stroke for Steve Waugh, and it shows in the stats - the shot fetched him nearly 16% of his total Test runs during this period.

Among the players who missed the cut are Jacques Kallis, whose average of 101.33 puts him in 11th place in that list. Brian Lara has an aggregate of 402, but his relatively high number of dismissals - seven - means that the average drops to just 57, putting him in 28th place.

The Lara factor
Does the presence of Brian Lara overawe his team-mates and cause them to play below their potential? That question has been doing the rounds of late, especially after West Indies' performance in the home series against South Africa. In the one Test that Lara didn't play - at Georgetown - West Indies amassed 543 for 5, with two double-centuries in the innings. In the next two matches, when Lara returned, the team capitulated, with only three fifty-plus scores from the rest of the batsmen. There could be various reasons for the debacle - the Georgetown pitch was an excellent one for batting, and when the West Indians got another such track, at Antigua, they came into their own again - but the issue came into the fore with Ridley Jacobs offering his opinions on Lara to further fuel the debate. Do the numbers justify the theory that the presence of Lara causes the rest of the batsmen to underperform?

At first impression, it seems to. In all Tests since 2000, West Indies have lost 52% of the games; with Lara, that figure goes up to 60% (30 out of 50 Tests); without him, it drops to 26.67 (four out of 15). The stats for individual batsmen are equally skewed - eight of the ten batsmen who have played at least five matches with and without Lara average more when he isn't around. And for some of them, the difference is huge - Marlon Samuels (64.40 without Lara, 22.08 with him), Jimmy Adams (63, 21.82), Wavell Hinds (54.15, 25.25), and Daren Ganga (38, 20.29) all seem to relish batting when Lara isn't in the line-up.

However, dig a little deeper and it emerges that six out of the 15 matches that West Indies played without Lara were against Zimbabwe (four) and Bangladesh (two). West Indies ended up winning five of those six Tests (though they did get a mighty scare once, at Port-of-Spain in 1999-2000, when Zimbabwe fell short chasing a target of 99). Remove all the matches involving those two teams, and the stats don't look quite so bad for Lara - West Indies have only won one out of nine without him, though the loss percentage is still lower when Lara is not in the side.

Among the batsmen too, only two of six have a higher average when Lara isn't playing, but for both Hinds and Chanderpaul, the difference is a fairly significant one. Ironically, Jacobs has done much better with Lara in the side - in the eight matches he has played minus Lara, Jacobs's average is only 11.55. So, the numbers seem to suggest that West Indies haven't done particularly well without Lara, but worryingly, their performance hasn't lifted with Lara in the side either.