India's ODI conundrum, and Australia minus McGrath

Seven batsmen and four bowlers or six batsmen and five? It's an issue the Indian team has grappled with for a long time now, and one which has again came into prominence after the side's two defeats against Sri Lanka in the IndianOil Cup. The think-tanks seem comfortable with the idea of playing only four specialist bowlers, but critics have been questioning this policy for a while and Rahul Dravid, the new captain, himself fanned the debate by suggesting that India were a bowler short in those matches.

Playing with an extra batsman or a bowler depends on various factors. The seventh batsman often provides the top six the cushion of a fall-back option in case things go wrong, allowing them to express themselves more freely than they otherwise might. The other argument for playing seven batsmen goes something like this: on the batsman-friendly pitches which are the norm for most of the one-day matches, even regular bowlers get tonked for plenty. Thus, the extra runs conceded by the part-timer is only marginal, so why not play a specialist batsman instead of an extra bowler?

In the ideal scenario, the Indian team would have an allrounder who could chip in with both bat and ball and, while Irfan Pathan has shown undoubted ability with the bat, he isn't quite the finished product yet. India have therefore opted to go with seven batsmen most of the times and, as the table below indicates, their part-time bowlers - defined, for the purpose of this exercise, as bowlers who average fewer than five overs per match (Tendulkar, Sehwag, Ganguly and Yuvraj all fall in this category) - haven't done too badly. They average fewer than 40 runs per wicket, and while their economy rate is the third-highest among part-timers from all teams, it isn't that much more than what India's regular bowlers have managed. What's also significant is the number of wickets that India's non-regular bowlers have taken - their 78 is 20 clear of the next best, and 31 more than the next non-minnow. At the other end of the spectrum is India's subcontinental neighbour - Pakistan's surfeit of genuine allrounders means that they have seldom needed the services of a part-time bowler.

Team	Regulars Wkts/ Ave/ ER	Part-timers Wkts/ Ave/ ER	Difference - Ave/ ER
Australia	433/ 27.44/ 4.43	37/ 31.95/ 5.32	4.51/ 0.89
Bangladesh	199/ 40.57/ 4.95	29/ 46.66/ 5.03	6.09/ 0.08
England	292/ 27.73/ 4.41	47/ 40.66/ 4.86	12.93/ 0.45
India	264/ 32.40/ 4.95	78/ 39.59/ 5.50	7.19/ 0.55
New Zealand	277/ 31.13/ 4.74	12/ 64.17/ 4.49	33.04/ -0.25
Pakistan	471/ 31.75/ 4.71	5/ 40.00/ 6.78	8.25/ 2.07
South Africa	282/ 29.55/ 4.50	37/ 47.41/ 5.34	17.86/ 0.84
Sri Lanka	272/ 25.89/ 4.05	13/ 49.54/ 4.75	23.65/ 0.70
West Indies	255/ 36.59/ 4.88	41/ 41.85/ 5.34	5.26/ 0.46
Zimbabwe	212/ 37.44/ 4.89	58/ 53.41/ 5.70	15.97/ 0.81

(All stats from April 2003. The numbers don't include the Sri Lanka-India match played on August 3.)

The effectiveness of the part-time bowlers also depends on the conditions they bowl in. The Indian team's decision to rely on Virender Sehwag and Co. for ten overs might also have been a result of their earlier performances in Sri Lanka. When bowling here, India's non-regular bowlers take a wicket every 21 runs and go for less than five an over. In the six ODIs Sehwag had played in Sri Lanka since April 2003 and before this tournament began, he'd taken 5 for 138 in 31 overs - that's an average of 27.60 and an economy rate of 4.45. In 18 overs in this tournament, though, Sehwag has leaked 109 runs for just two wickets. And who says the Indians are only missing Sachin Tendulkar the batsman - since April 2003, Tendulkar's 12 wickets in Sri Lanka have cost him 12.25 apiece, at an economy rate of 4.59.

Indian part-timers in ...	Average	Economy rate
Sri Lanka	21.40	4.96
Bangladesh	26.94	4.72
Australia	38.77	5.79
England	51.00	4.61
India	51.79	6.06
Pakistan	65.17	6.02

(All stats since April 2003. India haven't played in New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies and Zimbabwe during this period. The numbers don't include the Sri Lanka-India match played on August 3.)

The McGrath factor
With their tormentor away nursing a twisted ankle, it was the perfect opportunity for England's batsmen to make merry, and so it proved as they rattled up 407 on the opening day at Edgbaston. Glenn McGrath has been the key element of the Australian fast-bowling attack in the last ten years, taking 508 out of 1917 wickets taken by their bowlers (26.50%). Since his debut in November 1993, Australia have won 73 out of 110 Tests in which McGrath has played (66.36%), and only 13 out of 26 (50%) when he hasn't. The table below shows how McGrath's absence has boosted the opposition top-order partnerships (though the numbers might be slightly skewed because they include games in which, along with McGrath, Jason Gillespie or Shane Warne weren't available either).

The bowler who has suffered most in McGrath's absence has been Brett Lee, whose average bloats from 28 to 44 in McGrath's absence. That figure has gone up even higher - to 47.15 - after the battering he took on the first day, returning figures of 1 for 111 from 17 overs. Gillespie, Warne and Michael Kasprowicz, however, have managed quite well even when McGrath hasn't been around.

	With McGrath Tests/ Wkts/ Ave	Without McGrath Tests/ Wkts/ Ave
Jason Gillespie	57/ 209/ 25.74	10/ 39/ 26.87
Michael Kasprowicz	24/ 73/ 30.42	9/ 29/ 32.86
Shane Warne	90/ 438/ 24.54	34/ 151/ 27.91
Brett Lee	31/ 118/ 28.35	7/ 26/ 44.69

(Stats don't include the ongoing Edgbaston Test.)