Ahmed Shehzad [1st Jan 2013 – 31st Dec 2014] ODI innings by innings breakdown and batting analysis

ahmedwaqas92

ODI Debutant
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Runs
10,581
Post of the Week
4
Ahmed Shehzad [1st Jan 2013 – 31st Dec 2014] ODI innings by innings breakdown and batting analysis

This thread title and the premise behind such an inquiry came from a light discussion me and a few of my friends were having today morning (30.01.2017) on a prominent social media platform.

We were generically discussing the direction and the players that would necessarily take Pakistan forward (in ODIs) when one of the blokes dropped in the name of Mr. Ahmad Shehzad, stating that we should back the lad and involve him in our plans since he has the tools to succeed in the long run. When asked specifically for any empirical data that backs these claims I was gestured to delve into the years 2013 and 2014; and I quote “Shehzad’s Best Years Statistically”.

Now whoever has been following me on Pakpassion and on other platforms know that I have some extremely strong reservations of Mr. Shehzad coming back into the team and as such when the said player was brought into the discussion I rebuffed the claim stating; with obvious conviction, that the player is proven non-performer and should be kept away from the team.

However, it clicked me that maybe, my analysis and other established notions on Shehzad could be a culmination of bad memories and other off field issues. So to clear the misconception and to hypothetically myth bust these ‘bad thoughts’ I set out to see how exactly; Mr. Ahmad Shehzad has fared (Purely on Numbers) between the best batting years of his international career.

YEAR 2013
AS2013_1.jpg
AS2013_2.jpg

The above two images show us Ahmad Shehzad’s yearly average, strike rate and his dot ball percentage for the year 2013. In these twelve months, Shehzad faced South Africa and Sri Lanka in the UAE while he had an additional 3 away series with West Indies, Zimbabwe and the Saffers (Again).

Since he was the opener in all of the series, we assume that Shehzad had the most amount of time to construct an innings while the above Innings by Innings schematic does tell us a lot about how Shehzad, starting from the tour of the West Indies changed his approach and had an upward trend for runs made per series but an everlasting problem of a low strike rate and a huge percentage of dot balls.

Code:
Series 	        | Avg    | SR     | DB%  | Venue
West Indies	| 23.80 | 47.62 | 73.36 | West Indies
Zimbabwe         | 27.66 | 56.71 | 68.93 | Zimbabwe
South Africa	| 38.60 | 70.57 | 63.78 | U.A.E.
South Africa	| 45.67 | 47.02 | 72.26 | South Africa
Sri Lanka	        | 55.40 | 82.88 | 56.35 | U.A.E.
Cumulative	| 38.23 | 63.55 | 66.94 |

All the cumulative numbers adding up from the averages and metrics of each series clearly identify that Ahmad Shehzad even ‘during his golden run’ had a serious cricketing deficiency of rotating the strike and also striking at a decent rate throughout his innings.

The only series that is subject to not following such a trend is the one that was played against Sri Lanka in the U.A.E. by the end of the year. In this particular series Shehzad had an extremely healthy (relative to his previous numbers) SR of 82.88 and a comparatively low dot ball percentage of (56.35) as well. To go along with such improvements was his 55+ average for the series but if we put these numbers into perspective for the entire scheme of things then these decentish figures are overshadowed by Hafeez’s series average of near 150 odd and 90+ SR, which might bitterly indicate that the batting surfaces in all five matches were true to their nature and massively friendly towards the subcontinent style of modern ODI cricket.

Apart from preceding series; all throughout 2013, Shehzad faced a lot of difficulties in getting into any sort of batting rhythm. His away scores in WI and ZIM had his series averages suffering into the 20s, while his dot ball percentage hovered around 70 percent for four distinct tours. This meant that Shehzad was one of the prime candidates in getting bogged down extremely easily during a run chase or whenever Pakistan was asked to set a target.

It is also noteworthy, and ridiculously fascinating that the PCB kept on playing Shehzad even though it was substantially clear that modern ODI cricket was not his cup of tea and he had severe deficiencies to overcome before being allowed to wield an international willow but alas he played in every single game leading up to the World Cup and beyond.

Another extremely interesting factor to note is Shehzad’s incrementing batting average up until the end of the year when Pakistan faced off against the Sri Lanka in the U.A.E. The Averages, Strike Rate and Dot Ball % metric shows that even though his strike rotation and ability to score runs per 100 balls disappointingly remained the same, his batting average increased on a per series basis.

This attribute can be termed to the fact that the entire team at this point in time had engulfed itself into the Misbah philosophy of playing cricket with a safety first approach. Misbah’s tactics of safeguarding the full quota of 50 overs trickled onto the Pakistani openers as Shehzad can be seen in occupying the crease more and more, with each passing series – blatantly putting a price on his wicket.

The distressing aspect in such an approach is that if any of the said batsman has a very large Dot ball % then this strategy would be counterproductive on batting friendly tracks and modern ODI lineups would make merry of the fact that the opposition batsmen, in this case Pakistanis, sit back and don’t attack as much as they might anticipate from an aggressive unit.

YEAR 2014
AS2014_1.jpg
AS2014_2.jpg

In the year 2014 Ahmad Shehzad featured in 4 distinct series – 1 multinational tournament (Asia Cup) and 3 bilateral series against Sri Lanka (Away), Australia (U.A.E.) and New Zealand (U.A.E.). His batting numbers were more or less identical to how he fared in 2013 with no reduction in dot ball Percentage but a 3 point loss to his overall strike rate from the preceding year. His cumulative numbers were:

Code:
Series 	       | Avg 	| SR 	  | DB%  | Venue
Asia Cup	| 45.00 | 70.20 | 61.54 | Bangladesh
Sri Lanka	| 38.33 | 65.98 | 64.11 | Sri Lanka
Australia	| 30.33 | 59.26 | 64.80 | U.A.E.
New Zealand	| 39.00 | 45.82 | 73.86 | U.A.E.
Cumulative	| 38.16 | 60.31 | 66.08 |

As stated above, his batting averages, strike rates and dot ball percentages are near identical in both 2013 and 2014 so in order to make it even more uniform I decided to have a trend analysis of how he did across both the years.
The method used was to periodically plot scatter points for all the 9 series Shehzad played in these two years and made a trend comparison to know better on where he stood as a player and what can we expect from him hypothetically, if he’s selected and allowed to come back.

Here are his Trends.

Cumulative Numbers
SPRDS1.jpg
* Cumulative Series Averages and Other Metrics [2013-2014]

Batting Average
AVG.jpg

Strike Rate
SR.jpg

Dot Ball %
DB%.jpg

Although these graphical representations show exactly the same numbers we viewed in tabulated form earlier, they convey a distinct aspect of his game that most people conveniently miss – Shehzad’s Inconsistency to regularly muster his average each game.

The graphs clearly display that Shehzad has severe issues when it comes to batting consistency and these are reflected by the constant that is embedded in each equation for the line of best fit.

Code:
Avg => y = 1.1267x   + 32.565
SrR => y = 0.60923x + 65.13572
DoB=> y = 0.3411x   + 68.2595

One can also clearly see that the scatter points are way off from the line of best fit and are reminiscent of the fact that Shehzad over the course of his most statistically beneficial 2 years did not have enough consistency to be counted as a premier batsman.

So where does Shehzad stand right now? Many folks and media personnel are calling for his return to the ODI side on the basis that he might be a thriving partner to someone like a Sharjeel but a guy who averages 38ish with a SR of 60 odd and a Dot Ball percentage of near 60-65 would genuinely be a downgrade to what Pakistan are specifically looking for in the shorter formats of the game – and that too as an opening batsman.

People often claim that he has been performing in the domestics recently and deserves a go for his recent string of scores but how conveniently these same people forget the likes of Fawad Alam and other domestic batsmen who have been for years now piling on the runs without much reward or a chance to showcase their abilities, on a consistent basis, at the international level.

The latter being excused, almost every time, with a simple detraction that domestic bowlers and conditions are not ‘testing enough’ and hence the mountain of scores hardly matter but with the same logic Ahmad Shehzad’s recent exploits should be taken with a grain of salt since according to many who refute players like Fawad and other regular performers, the scores in domestics hardly matter.

Also it is worthy to note that Shehzad’s ‘Golden Run’ in ODIs is embarrassingly mediocre-ish when it comes to modern ODI strike rates and strike rotation but we will be giving Ahmad the benefit of the doubt assuming that he has improved in the last 2 odd years and is now a better and more equipped batsman than what he was before.

For this very reason we will adjourn a hypothetical increment of 20 percent to his overall numbers that we took earlier from [1st Jan 2013 – 31st Dec 2014]. Now anyone who might have taken any college courses in Data Analysis, Time Series, Progression or even Calculus III would most certainly know that an increase of 20 odd percent to any live data trend is almost God like divine level progression – but for Ahmad Shehzad we will emphatically assume that this has happened since Dec 2014 up until now because #FansAreInHeart 

What If Scenario
SPRDS2.jpg

On the left hand side of the tabulated results are the original numbers that Ahmad Shehzad made during the season of Jan 2013 – Dec 2014. While on the right hand side are the hypothetical numbers he could potentially end up getting (upon being selected) if he has somehow managed to raise his game by 20 percent on each factor associated with his batting.

To give identical changes I incremented the averages and strike rates by 1.2 while simultaneously reducing the Dot Ball % by 0.8. The uniformity for these chances reflected in a 20% net positive to all his batting credentials and the yellow highlighted line at the end is a cumulative figure for the said attributes.
If all goes well for Ahmad Shehzad, then upon getting picked again he would be averaging in the mid-40s with a SR of near 75 and a Dot Ball % of 53-ish granted he has raised his game by 20 percent on the whole.

The funny question now remains – do we need a batsman in the team that strikes at 75 balls per 100 and plays out more than 50 percent of dot balls in his entire innings? Do we need someone who if ends up occupying the crease for 20 overs may let go 60+ odd deliveries without scoring or rotating the strike? And mind you this is after the hypothetical increase in average, strike rate and a significant reduction in dot ball percentage.

The yellow highlighted stats are near to what Azhar Ali was averaging when he first burst onto the scenes after the World Cup but since his approach, batting style and the method to progress an innings was outdated he has now become a burden on the team with a slump in form. Shehzad is a player who we can agree is in the same mold as how Azhar Ali bats during any limited overs match hence selecting a like for like player could severely lead to future problems when Shehzad himself suffers a bad patch or low form in general.
 
I've said it before. Shehzad is a downgrade on Azhar Ali in LOIs. At least Azhar doesn't moan and act like an arrogant superstar. Shehzad had some talent but it seems he's wasted it. I can maybe see him playing in tests in the future if he seriously improves, but there is no room at all in the LOIs teams for him.
 
I don't know how can some clueless folks still call for this Chris Martin v2 to be included.

Excellent effort, for something that should be very obvious for anyone who watches cricket.

But his fans will still call for him to be selected.
 
This is one epic statistical takedown

The problem with Ahmed Shehzad simply is this:

Unless he scores a 65+ score, almost any runs scored by him in ODIs are useless.

His general trend is that for his first 50-60 runs his SR hovers around 70 or even lower. It is only after when he passes that hurdle that he begins accelerating by virtue of boundaries (not strike rotation).

However due to his limited batting ability he will more often than not get out before the fifties meaning that a typical score will be what is his average and his typical Strike rate will be his career SR of around 70.

Unless he scores big, he is a liability and is sth we cannot afford

Its funny that in his 'golden period' which he and his fans keep harping on about, is still a statistically mediocre period and he is far from aggressive

He is a donwgrade on Azhar Ali which really says something. Azhar averages 7-8 runs higher at a marginally quicker rate
 
Bowling machine product who can play a few aesthetically pleasing shots in his zone which lead many into thinking he's "talented." Outside his comfort zone, he struggles to time the ball and when restricted by tight bowling which is pretty much every game he resorts to leg side hoicks to show "aggression." From a technical standpoint, he's even more flawed. Overall, a very limited player with good temperament. Not worth investing in purely on cricketing ability, take into account the baggage he brings along with that, it's a no-brainer.
 
Damn bro, that is some next level statistical breakdown.

Looking for a job with sky sports lol?
 
Wow wow wow! :raja [MENTION=136079]ahmedwaqas92[/MENTION]

Great analysis

Business ka aadmi hai naa.
 
Excellent post but can you do the same for Azhar and see who is better of the two?
 
I would expect him to be on the plane to the West Indies on the next tour.
 
I don't know how can some clueless folks still call for this Chris Martin v2 to be included.

Excellent effort, for something that should be very obvious for anyone who watches cricket.

But his fans will still call for him to be selected.

This is one epic statistical takedown

The problem with Ahmed Shehzad simply is this:

Unless he scores a 65+ score, almost any runs scored by him in ODIs are useless.

His general trend is that for his first 50-60 runs his SR hovers around 70 or even lower. It is only after when he passes that hurdle that he begins accelerating by virtue of boundaries (not strike rotation).

However due to his limited batting ability he will more often than not get out before the fifties meaning that a typical score will be what is his average and his typical Strike rate will be his career SR of around 70.

Unless he scores big, he is a liability and is sth we cannot afford

Its funny that in his 'golden period' which he and his fans keep harping on about, is still a statistically mediocre period and he is far from aggressive

He is a donwgrade on Azhar Ali which really says something. Azhar averages 7-8 runs higher at a marginally quicker rate

The funny thing is, and yes I was literally cracking up writing this entire thing was that I knew Shehzad was as bad as they came, but when I delved into it based purely on numbers it revealed to me that he is absolutely GOD AWFUL when it comes to modern ODI batting.

I mean seriously, if you look at the OP I even (at the end :)) ) incremented his numbers by a hypothetical 20% to see where we would land if, he's improved in the domestics but even so he had a 70ish SR with a Dot Ball % near 55...WHICH IS MASSIVE FOR AN OPENER !!

That's like 10 maidens in the first 20 odd overs if Shehzad manages to hang about till 20-25 over mark. Even though I haven't looked at the numbers yet for Azhar Ali I can bet a lot of money that he would not be this bad in the vis-a-vis comparison with Shehzad.
 
Well you have so much of time to do such an analysis... Wow... But I think conclusion of your analysis was already known to everyone...
 
I am lost for words. POTW. No doubt.

On topic of this thread, he is as mediocre as they come.:farhat

Thanks for the Support bro, although this was a very telling experience for me as well; and I am hoping that if I get the time I'll churn out a few more of these for a couple of other 'golden boys' as well. Would be fun :D

Damn bro, that is some next level statistical breakdown.

Looking for a job with sky sports lol?

Yar I am telling you this isn't that hard to be honest, thori logic aur aik Chalta Phirta common sense and you can, frankly speaking, arrive at such a conclusion with minimum effort. The sad part is that PCB which is a very big (sort of) organization doesn't have even one Allah ka Banda that can forward these simple deficiencies to the board or selection committee :facepalm:

It is appalling that with the numbers Shehzad had he literally played straight throughout 2013, 2014 and right up until the World Cup without even being considered to be dropped :livid: :livid: :livid: I mean even if there is no one in the PCB that had the acumen to sort this out they can at least....you know... look for help on these given platforms and trust me there are blokes out there (even I would do it without hesitation) that might help assess player performances without charging a dime to the board.

Just bloody hell ask for assistance and see how hundreds and thousands of folks would come out to help.

Wow wow wow! :raja [MENTION=136079]ahmedwaqas92[/MENTION]

Great analysis

Business ka aadmi hai naa.

Hahaha Thanks Bro...Yar waisay I can certainly picture Rambo here and to be fair to him I was listening to his analysis earlier, didn't seem half as bad as some make him out to be.

Maybe he just gets Jazbati during the game and looses all sense of rationality in the comm box :yk

Pakistani Genes yar !!! :ashwin
 
Can someone give a summary of the whole post?

1) Shehzad Averages in the 30s even during his prime period (1st Jan 2013 - 31 Dec 2014)
2) Shehzad's SR hovered from Low 50 to Mid-Late 60s during his Prime Period.
3) He has a Dot Ball Percentage of 60 (Meaning that if he plays out 20 overs, he will block 12 maidens and score around 75 ish.
4) Even with the sub par numbers, Shehzad is extremely inconsistent to churn out mediocrity on a consistent basis. His scatter points to the trend his numbers follow are Haphazard and out of Sync which means that if he averages 35-36. He will probably score a 70 and then next game be gone for a duck.
5) Selectors stuck with such mediocrity for nearly 3 years, without even considering him to be dropped.
 
Excellent post but can you do the same for Azhar and see who is better of the two?

Do one for Azhar too please.

Doing the Azhar's bit Today. Let's see what we get; but I am confident he'll beat Shehzad to it, at least in the SR and AVG. Dot Ball % I am not too sure, they could have identical ones...But let's do the latter and let the numbers decide for themselves.
 
Bowling machine product who can play a few aesthetically pleasing shots in his zone which lead many into thinking he's "talented." Outside his comfort zone, he struggles to time the ball and when restricted by tight bowling which is pretty much every game he resorts to leg side hoicks to show "aggression." From a technical standpoint, he's even more flawed. Overall, a very limited player with good temperament. Not worth investing in purely on cricketing ability, take into account the baggage he brings along with that, it's a no-brainer.

The bold part really signifies on where Shehzad stands as a cricketer right now; the OP is as telling as it gets and if some people even have doubts right now then may God have mercy on them.

For what it's worth, I really would like a few Shehzad fans to come and give us reasons on why we're seeing such mediocrity even in his batting numbers during the period they claim was his best two year statistically. No seriously..... Can a few Shehzad fans please explain this to me ???

People like @MSRN or [MENTION=137804]msb314[/MENTION] Guys where art thou ??
 
I would expect him to be on the plane to the West Indies on the next tour.

THIS.

No matter what we say, Shehzad is still getting selected for the WI tour. Or the tour after that.
 
THIS.

No matter what we say, Shehzad is still getting selected for the WI tour. Or the tour after that.

It'll be almost bad as Umar Akmal being on that plane too. Oh the horror.
 
It'll be almost bad as Umar Akmal being on that plane too. Oh the horror.

Umar's the guy who will win you a lot of matches.

Or contribute heavily to the victories. One of the 2-3 guys who can play the modern game.
 
The bold part really signifies on where Shehzad stands as a cricketer right now; the OP is as telling as it gets and if some people even have doubts right now then may God have mercy on them.

For what it's worth, I really would like a few Shehzad fans to come and give us reasons on why we're seeing such mediocrity even in his batting numbers during the period they claim was his best two year statistically. No seriously..... Can a few Shehzad fans please explain this to me ???

People like @MSRN or [MENTION=137804]msb314[/MENTION] Guys where art thou ??

How do his numbers compare to his contemporaries during the same period?

E.g. Misbah, Hafeez, Nasir, Haris Sohail, Azhar, Maqsood, Umar Akmal?
 
SR of 45 in 2014 vs new zealand? you hv miscalculated it. pls check once and do overall recheck once more

He scored two ducks in those series which would make his SR jumped to a grand total of zero in both innings.

Accumulating those five scores and taking the aggregate mean does indeed land you to 45.822
 
Totally agree with what you are saying and I don't think Shehzad should be back at this point either. However, it is worth pointing out that Shehzad, despite playing International cricket for years is still only 25 years old. He is young enough that he can figure it out and who knows, maybe he has fixed some technical flaws to increase his SR but I still wouldn't bring him back at this point. He needs to have a long consistent string of dominating domestic cricket and maybe he can be considered then (likely a better player at Test than LOI format though).

Hafeez career stats are identical to Shehzad too. That's the problem in Pakistan... having far too many guys who can't rotate the strike and score at a high rate. Average is extremely low too considering the strike rate.
 
If he improves his st.rate he should make a comeback but if not there's no need to include him...

Past doesn't matter but the progress matters if he has progressed as a player in domestic then he deserve to be in the team but if he hasn't then what's the point of taking a player for one off series,

Whoever is selected needs a proper chance few series or an year with the team..

Me being a Shehzad fan doesn't want him in the team if his st.rate hasn't improved in domestic,

If in his last few domestic tournaments his avg st.rate is 100+ I'd back him but if not no matter how huge sums of runs he had scored he shouldn't come back to the team right now, give him some time to improve...

Chop and change and comebacks after one good domestic innings is a joke.. It is one of the main reason we have been failing badly..
Umar came back to the team after scoring 84 in one T20 and he didn't perform in any series till his come back.

So if guys are out of the team then give them full chance to improve few major domestic tournaments on different pitches different regions then if a player has improved his flaws then and only then he should make a comeback!!!
 
Last edited:
How do his numbers compare to his contemporaries during the same period?

E.g. Misbah, Hafeez, Nasir, Haris Sohail, Azhar, Maqsood, Umar Akmal?

I am doing a vis-a-vis comparison with Azhar as we speak however, it will take a bit of time to come up with numbers for all the players that you've mentioned in your post.

Also it is very unique to note that Shehzad played almost untouched by any selector from Jan 2013 up until the World cup. This means that to have fair comparison we need to filter those players that probably played 80-90% in the same time frame.

By this counts I can only see Misbah, Hafeez and Umer as his batting teammates.
 
I am doing a vis-a-vis comparison with Azhar as we speak however, it will take a bit of time to come up with numbers for all the players that you've mentioned in your post.

Also it is very unique to note that Shehzad played almost untouched by any selector from Jan 2013 up until the World cup. This means that to have fair comparison we need to filter those players that probably played 80-90% in the same time frame.

By this counts I can only see Misbah, Hafeez and Umer as his batting teammates.

May be a mute point but Shehzad played the T20's in the Aane Do series but was not recalled to the ODI squad until September 2013 when SAF toured UAE.

Regarding the three players you mentioned, fair enough - lets see what we come up with.
 
Umar's the guy who will win you a lot of matches.

Or contribute heavily to the victories. One of the 2-3 guys who can play the modern game.

Not with the form and fitness level he is at right now...

I am a big Umar fan but he really let me down with his preparation and training for the ODI series - cannot believe how unfit he is right now. :facepalm:
 
Can someone send Selectors these stats ?

I have always maintained he is nothing more than a Hack in limited over. However I still think he should part of tests ( not because he is good , just because worse than him will get selected) .

ONLY IF HE LEARNS !!!!!!!
 
May be a mute point but Shehzad played the T20's in the Aane Do series but was not recalled to the ODI squad until September 2013 when SAF toured UAE.

Regarding the three players you mentioned, fair enough - lets see what we come up with.

No this is not factually true. After the Ane Doh Series T20s Shehzad featured in the tour to the West Indies in 2013 where he played all five ODIs. This was also the come back series for Shahid Afridi hence I have very distinct memory of the events that year.

Furthermore, Shehzad also played in the away series in Zimbabwe and competed in every series Pakistan played up until the World Cup in 2015. Even after 2015 he only missed the Bangladesh series after which he was recalled and then dropped again due to non performance and other off field issues

During the 2012-2015 era, he was one of the few blokes who featured extremely regularly in Pakistani ODIs.
 
The results couldn't meet even my already low expectations.

If you can't keep your dot ball percentage less than 50% for a middle/lower order batsman and less than 55% atmost for an opener in today's limited over game, you are not worth a place in the team.

With having this sort of record and with his attitude, he will cost us more matches than Afridi if we turn towards him again.

Funny thing about this guy is that he have a gall to refer Kohli, Root and Smith as 'we'.
 
POTW.. Excellent work [MENTION=136079]ahmedwaqas92[/MENTION], one hell of a statistical breakdown...This has to be shared with Shehzad, Mickey and the selectors asap..
 
Can someone give a summary of the whole post?

Shehzad takes too much to play himself in and more often than not fails to convert which makes his innings harmful for the side.

Though it was pretty much a common knowledge great effort in the OP.
 
He scored two ducks in those series which would make his SR jumped to a grand total of zero in both innings.

Accumulating those five scores and taking the aggregate mean does indeed land you to 45.822

thats a poor way of calculating SR best method is to take total runs and divide by total balls faced.
 
thats a poor way of calculating SR best method is to take total runs and divide by total balls faced.

It's not the actual SR, it's the aggregate mean for cumulative SRs in that particular series. Gives a more realistic figure to how a batsman might fare in general.
 


What If Scenario
View attachment 72264

On the left hand side of the tabulated results are the original numbers that Ahmad Shehzad made during the season of Jan 2013 – Dec 2014. While on the right hand side are the hypothetical numbers he could potentially end up getting (upon being selected) if he has somehow managed to raise his game by 20 percent on each factor associated with his batting.

To give identical changes I incremented the averages and strike rates by 1.2 while simultaneously reducing the Dot Ball % by 0.8. The uniformity for these chances reflected in a 20% net positive to all his batting credentials and the yellow highlighted line at the end is a cumulative figure for the said attributes.
If all goes well for Ahmad Shehzad, then upon getting picked again he would be averaging in the mid-40s with a SR of near 75 and a Dot Ball % of 53-ish granted he has raised his game by 20 percent on the whole.

The funny question now remains – do we need a batsman in the team that strikes at 75 balls per 100 and plays out more than 50 percent of dot balls in his entire innings? Do we need someone who if ends up occupying the crease for 20 overs may let go 60+ odd deliveries without scoring or rotating the strike? And mind you this is after the hypothetical increase in average, strike rate and a significant reduction in dot ball percentage.

The yellow highlighted stats are near to what Azhar Ali was averaging when he first burst onto the scenes after the World Cup but since his approach, batting style and the method to progress an innings was outdated he has now become a burden on the team with a slump in form. Shehzad is a player who we can agree is in the same mold as how Azhar Ali bats during any limited overs match hence selecting a like for like player could severely lead to future problems when Shehzad himself suffers a bad patch or low form in general.

This really kills all arguments in his favor

It is unrealistic anyway. You are taking the data set from his BEST EVER period which his fans (and he, himself) seem to hold as the greatest peak of any batsmen ever :))

Progression you have assumed are in a dream state and frankly not realistic assumptions but even if you give him that leeway you are still getting a largely mediocre player not in tune with the modern game.

Ofcourse the major problem with him remains ie. if he doesnt score 1 50-60+ then his first 30-40 runs (usually less) are not only useless but harmful
 
POTW bait. :shezzy

Anyway fans of Shehzad are the most delusional lot ever and no matter how many facts and pie charts are presented, it won't make one iota of a difference.
 
I just noticed the method of calculating strike rate and to be fair, it doesn't work like that.

It's a common knowledge that longer innings have greater impact on overall strike rate. The strike rate of almost every batsman would decrease significantly by that method. It's basically giving equal value to long innings and early dismissals for strike rate calculations.

If you increase his actual strike rate and average of his best period by 20%, he would become a very fine player (though the probability of that happening is as much as of Chris Martin scoring a century).
 
I just noticed the method of calculating strike rate and to be fair, it doesn't work like that.

It's a common knowledge that longer innings have greater impact on overall strike rate. The strike rate of almost every batsman would decrease significantly by that method. It's basically giving equal value to long innings and early dismissals for strike rate calculations.

If you increase his actual strike rate and average of his best period by 20%, he would become a very fine player (though the probability of that happening is as much as of Chris Martin scoring a century).

This is the sole reason why I had to normalize the data before running through a progression. Cricket statistics is very different to how other games conduct their metrics and to have a better viewpoint of where a batsmen stands (in terms of striking capability in a real time scenario) it is essential that cumulative mean SR are taken into account rather than actual SR.

For E.g if a guy scores 2 fifteen ball ducks and two centuries (with almost run a ball SR) in the same series then his 30 balls from the ducks would be tricked over and utilized in the runs he made when he hit those dual centuries. This kind of metric skews the overall impact of SR since basically what it means is that those 2 ducks amount to no on field impact and that player blocking 2.5 overs each in both games is a metric that we can let go ??!! - I think this is a highly flawed method of calculation

To eliminate such an anomaly I took cumulative SRs so that we get to know the actual ability of a player to play at a decent pace and be reliable at the same time - hence the above method. I am pretty sure that if you apply this same methodology to players like Smith, Kohli, Root or Williamson then their actual SR would be much closer to their cumulative SR making them reliable and consistent batsmen for the team.

Just now I did the exact same progression for Azhar as well - Have a look at this thread http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ent-%96-ODI-Inning-by-Inning-Batting-Analysis
 
Is Shehzad a flawed one day batsman? Most definitely.
Is he the best of a bad bunch? Maybe...

I mean he did outscore everyone in the recent one day tournaments and his strike rates were pretty good too. He still takes his time at the start of his innings which is concerning and not ideal. But it could work if he is paired with Sharjeel. Not a huge Shahzad supporter btw. Just trying to give an alternate opinion.
 
Is Shehzad a flawed one day batsman? Most definitely.
Is he the best of a bad bunch? Maybe...

I mean he did outscore everyone in the recent one day tournaments and his strike rates were pretty good too. He still takes his time at the start of his innings which is concerning and not ideal. But it could work if he is paired with Sharjeel. Not a huge Shahzad supporter btw. Just trying to give an alternate opinion.

The point no more is whether Shehzad is a flawed batsmen or the best among the lot. The first bit is as evident as it can be howeve the purpose of this study was to give a clear account of where he stands as a cricketer and would a hypothetical improvement mark good fortunes for Pakiatan.

For this very reason I took his historical data and then made a progression for the skills he brings to the table in an much improved version.

If this much improved version is something that we might already have in abundance in the ODI team at the moment, then is it worth bringing someone back with so much excess baggage.

Let him perform to similar stats in domestics for a sustained period of time and once he has 2-3 seasons under his belt he will automatically make his own way into the team - if he's good enough.

That's my argument simply put
 
I am pretty sure that if you apply this same methodology to players like Smith, Kohli, Root or Williamson then their actual SR would be much closer to their cumulative SR making them reliable and consistent batsmen for the team.

Shahzad's strike drop from 73 to 62. Azhar's drop from 79 to 62. Sharjeel's drop from 113 to 99. 14 point drop is Sharjeel's case as compared to 11 point drop in Shahzad's case (Fab 4 have greater sample sets so difficult to compute). Of course Sharjeel wipes the floor with Shahzad as a modern day opener. But the point is that the strike rate of most of the batsmen would drop by 10-20 units range using that mechanism.

In other words, using your approach, Shahzad's strike rate would be around 75 after 20% increase (I am expecting it greater than Root's and Williamson's strike using your method.). So his actual strike rate would be around 90 along with 45 average. Not bad.
 
Last edited:
Shahzad's strike drop from 73 to 62. Azhar's drop from 79 to 62. Sharjeel's drop from 113 to 99. 14 point drop is Sharjeel's case as compared to 11 point drop in Shahzad's case (Fab 4 have greater sample sets so difficult to compute). Of course Sharjeel wipes the floor with Shahzad as a modern day opener. But the point is that the strike rate of most of the batsmen would drop by 10-20 units range using that mechanism.

In other words, using your approach, Shahzad's strike rate would be around 75 after 20% increase (I am expecting it greater than Root's and Williamson's strike using your method.). So his actual strike rate would be around 90 along with 45 average. Not bad.

True his actual SR would be 90 after a 20% increase but here you are ignoring a few factors

1) Raw data without normalization is prone to unreliability and will lead to inaccurate progression results - case in point look at Azhar's 1st year SR and 2nd Year SR.

If I don't do any normalization for year 1 his SR is in the mid 80s while he was averaging 40+. This looks all rosy until everything comes crashing down in year 2 and Azhar looses his form.

Had someone actually done these types of analysis and pointed out a downward trend to his game for the year maybe he would've worked more harder on his strike rotations and some of the game when we really needed him to step up could've been saved.

2) Metrics like SR has no upper bound which is the second flaw in such a variable. Even though there is a lower bound I.e zero it is NEVER enforced refer to my earlier quote earlier because of the same problem I pointed earlier - trickles onto innings that have non zero score.

3) My 20% increment was a ball park figure to point out the entire absurdity of the matter at hand. 20% increase in a real time progression is unheard of - it's almost GOD LEVEL incrementation to say the least. If you statistically look at things then I believe the greatest incrementation was that o Imran Khans and that too would be no more than 12-13 percent at best
 
True his actual SR would be 90 after a 20% increase but here you are ignoring a few factors

1) Raw data without normalization is prone to unreliability and will lead to inaccurate progression results - case in point look at Azhar's 1st year SR and 2nd Year SR.

If I don't do any normalization for year 1 his SR is in the mid 80s while he was averaging 40+. This looks all rosy until everything comes crashing down in year 2 and Azhar looses his form.

Had someone actually done these types of analysis and pointed out a downward trend to his game for the year maybe he would've worked more harder on his strike rotations and some of the game when we really needed him to step up could've been saved.

2) Metrics like SR has no upper bound which is the second flaw in such a variable. Even though there is a lower bound I.e zero it is NEVER enforced refer to my earlier quote earlier because of the same problem I pointed earlier - trickles onto innings that have non zero score.

3) My 20% increment was a ball park figure to point out the entire absurdity of the matter at hand. 20% increase in a real time progression is unheard of - it's almost GOD LEVEL incrementation to say the least. If you statistically look at things then I believe the greatest incrementation was that o Imran Khans and that too would be no more than 12-13 percent at best

I am not ignoring anything. Agreed with your third point when I said that

the probability of that happening is as much as of Chris Martin scoring a century

Not quite agree with your first two points, particularly the method of normalization (6(1) increase the cumulative strike rate more than 150(100) which is absurd).

My prime argument however is that we will only get the better picture once we apply this hypothesis to all players. Can't deduce much from one player's modified strike rate in isolation.
 
This guy really doesn't deserve any come back, the most selfish player in Pakistani cricket history he was, if we had a 90"s first class cricketer he couldn't perform even in first class then.
 
He is the smartest Pakistani cricketer at the time, he deserves a second chance and hopefully should be leading Pakistan one day. He has a century away in South Africa
 
These stats just show this mediocre player has no business in modern day LO cricket.

Good work by the OP.
 
Excellent statistics. Can't believe you actually decided to put in so much effort to something everyone already knew. He's a nothing player. Also, agr itna kar lia hai bhai, tou Mickey bhai ko ye post please email kar dou. :p

Anyway, POTW for me.
 
Great Work!
I know its a lot to ask but could also put up Azhar, Professor and Butts record as well for better comparison?
 
Great Work!

Thanks Brother !! Appreciate it


I know its a lot to ask but could also put up Azhar, Professor and Butts record as well for better comparison?

I've already completed Azhar's one, you can have a look at the Analysis on this thread http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...t-%96-ODI-innings-by-innings-batting-analysis

I will inshallah be doing one for Sarfaraz, Malik, Hafeez, Imad and Babar as as well to see where these players stand in terms of what Micky and Rixon have contributed in the last 3 odd series and how far can we go with the current squad

Hopefully once we have the analysis of all the said players we can do a like for like comparison for all of them. That's the overall goal for these individual thread !!
 
Back
Top