2/11/2015 Blogs: Kartikeya Date: How effective are left-right batting pairs? | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/826753.html 1/5

Feeds for all blogs

THE CORDON HOME

KAMRAN ABBASI

BYC

SAMIR CHOPRA

HASSAN CHEEMA

KARTIKEYA DATE

GUEST SPOT

NICHOLAS HOGG

JON HOTTEN

RUSSELL JACKSON

MICHAEL JEH

AHMER NAQVI

ANANTHA NARAYANAN

RAF NICHOLSON

V RAMNARAYAN

STUART WARK

JONATHAN WILSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2015

Kartikeya Date

Tweet 38 | | 6 COMMENTS

In cricket, being left-handed comes with some peculiar advantages (and

disadvantages). Bowlers, on the whole, tend to be right-arm bowlers and find

it difficult to get lbws against left-handers if the ball isn't swinging. On the

other hand, this same predominance of right-arm bowlers means that lefties

invariably face a massive rough outside their off stump as a Test match

progresses.

The desire for a left-right batting combination has produced many a change in

batting orders. Commentators often argue that in ODI cricket, left-right

combinations might find it easier to score quickly, as the bowler has to keep

adjusting his line and length and bowl to different fields if the strike is rotated

regularly. This increases the chance that the bowler may bowl a bad ball. To

take a hypothetical case, should this extend to promoting JP Duminy ahead of

Faf du Plessis to join Hashim Amla at the wicket? Is there any evidence to

suggest that left-right stands are more prolific than others?

How effective are left-right battingpairs?

No Calum Chambers in the 18 for Arsenal. Just

three appearances in 2015 for him - Wenger

protecting him after a difficult spell.

Retweeted by Jonathan Wilson

Jack Pitt-Brooke

@JackPittBrooke

Expand

This has got Kranjcar 76th-minute free-kick

winner written all over it.

Jonathan Wilson

@jonawils

Expand

23m

37m

The Cordon on Twitter

Tweets from a list by ESPNcricinfo

RECENT POSTS

How effective are left-right batting pairs?

Giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt?It's in the law

In defence of the bouncer

Bowling to blame for India's poor overseasrecord

Ganguly or Dravid: who was a better ODIcaptain?

All Posts »

MOST READ MOST COMMENTED

Top bowling and batting performances in the WorldCup

Pakistanis should stop crying fixing

Amir's ban a blessing in disguise

Amir only allowed to bowl offspin

The World Cup all-star commentary line-up

How the teams stack up

2.1kLike

Australia have been the only side in the last 15 years to have had consistently dominant

left-handers in their batting order © Getty Images

Enlarge

Series Countries Live Scores Fixtures Results News Features Photos Video & Audio Blogs Statistics Archive Shop Mobile

2/11/2015 Blogs: Kartikeya Date: How effective are left-right batting pairs? | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/826753.html 2/5

I looked at all ODI partnerships since 1979 in ODI games featuring only Test

teams (excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe). I have considered the top seven

batting positions only. For most of the 1980s and early '90s, one out of four

batsmen in the top seven was a left-hander. Starting in the late '90s, this has

increased to one in three.

Except for a short period in the late '90s, there has been no significant

difference in the run-scoring abilities of left- and right-handers in ODI cricket.

From the start of 1995 to the end of 2000, 70 left-handers batted in the top

seven of an ODI innings in matches featuring only the top eight Test teams,

and averaged 33.6. In these games, 199 right-handers averaged 29.3 batting

in the top seven. You can imagine the names - Ganguly, Bevan, Kirsten,

Jayasuriya, Lara, Gilchrist, Thorpe, Knight, Twose, Fleming - every team had a

top left-hander, if not two, in those years.

Now that we have some idea of how left- and right-handers have performed

over the years, let's see if the partnership record is a variance. In other

words, if, despite the overall quality of left- and right-handers being more or

© Kartikeya Date

Enlarge

© Kartikeya Date

Enlarge

2/11/2015 Blogs: Kartikeya Date: How effective are left-right batting pairs? | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/826753.html 3/5

less equal, left-right stands are more prolific, perhaps there is something to

the idea that teams should try and play left-right combinations whenever

possible, even if it means shuffling the batting order at short notice.

First, let's look at how frequently the three types of partnerships occur - two

right-handers, two left-handers, and left-right pairs. In the 21st century, two

right-handers have been as likely to bat together in an ODI as a left-right pair.

This change from the 1980s, when right-hand pairs predominated, is

understandable given the overall increase in number of left-handers in

international teams.

Next, let's look at partnership averages. The evidence suggests that left-right

partnerships have done better than right-right partnerships only during periods

when left-handers have been better than right-handers overall (prominently so

in the late 1990s). In the 21st century, two right-handers have batted together

5984 times in for the top six wickets in an ODI and produced 35.3 runs per

stand. Two left-handers have batted together 1317 times and averaged 34.4

runs per stand. Left-right pairs have batted 6767 times and averaged 36.3. So

left-right pairs have done two runs better than two left-handers, and one run

better than two right-handers. During this time, 154 left-handers have

averaged 32.8 in ODIs, the same as the 341 right-handers have. So perhaps

there is some minor benefit to left-right pairs. If you look at median stands,

the median left-right stand in the 21st century has been worth 23 runs. The

median left-left and right-right stands have been worth 22 runs each.

© Kartikeya Date

Enlarge

2/11/2015 Blogs: Kartikeya Date: How effective are left-right batting pairs? | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/826753.html 4/5

BATTING AVERAGE AGAINST EACH BOWLING OPPONENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY

OPPONENT LEFT-LEFT LEFT-RIGHT RIGHT-RIGHT

Australia 34.47 30.09 39.26

England 38.8 38.5 36.75

India 36.66 39.61 35.77

New Zealand 33.62 37.24 36.53

Pakistan 27.82 36.7 36.8

South Africa 35.47 34.89 32.14

Sri Lanka 34.39 34.93 35.74

West Indies 36.18 40.5 39.84

Let's look at how teams have done against different opponents in the 21st

century. The record in the table below does not, in my view, provide any clear

evidence to suggest that left-right pairs have done better than right-right or

left-left pairs. If anything, it suggests that weak bowling attacks have struggled

against left-right pairs. New Zealand have not had a strong attack for much of

the decade. Their current attack is perhaps their best since the days of Shane

Bond. India have fared best when they haven't been faced with a left-hander.

Pakistan on the other hand have dominated left-left pairs.

Finally, let's look at batting teams in the 21st century. In general, teams with

strong left-handers have done well with at least one left-hander at the wicket.

Australia have been the only side to have consistently dominant left-handers in

their batting order in the last 15 years. India have had Yuvraj Singh, Gautam

Gambhir, Shikhar Dhawan, Suresh Raina, and to a lesser extent, Sourav

Ganguly.

BATTING AVERAGE BY COMBINATION

TEAM LEFT-LEFT LEFT-RIGHT RIGHT-RIGHT

Australia 41.58 40.15 41.64

England 33.19 33.3 34.36

India 31.76 40.05 39.14

New Zealand 24.96 32 31.68

Pakistan 31.64 32.73 32.55

South Africa 31.08 38.41 40.32

Sri Lanka 33.46 36.58 34.67

West Indies 35.4 32.48 28.37

The record does not suggest that there is any advantage to sending a left-

hander in to join a right-hander (or vice versa), compared to sending a right-

hander in to join a right-hander, or a left-hander to join a left-hander. Further,

it shows that bowlers should be used to bowling against left-right pairs since

such pairs are as common as right-hand pairs in contemporary international

cricket. This raises an interesting point when one is comparing bowlers from

the 1970s and early 1980s with bowlers from more recent times. The latter

have had to be just as effective against good-quality left-handers as they have

against good-quality right-handers.

Left-right pairs have no systematic advantage over other types of batting pairs

in the ODI game. If the choice is between a left-hander and right-hander, the

© Kartikeya Date

Enlarge

2/11/2015 Blogs: Kartikeya Date: How effective are left-right batting pairs? | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/826753.html 5/5

batsman in better form ought to be selected, regardless of how many other

batsmen of that type are already present in the line-up. In Test matches, the

story may perhaps be different.

Kartikeya Date writes at A Cricketing View and tweets here

Feeds: Kartikeya Date

Keywords: Selection, Stats

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Latest

Login - Register to post comments -

Posted by Sigismund on (February 10, 2015, 14:00 GMT)

Another excellent set of statistics, and an analysis that was long overdue: thank you. I thinkthere is a genuine difference at lower levels of the game: bowlers are not good at adjusting, itis annoying for the captain and fielders, and it slows the game down - these things do seem toimpair the concentration and performance of the amateur player; perhaps even once insideprofessional cricket it is a hard feeling to shake. RE the first paragraph, I am firmly of the viewthat left-handed batting is cheating, because it is so much easier to score square of the wicket.Within top-flight cricket, there are many examples of left-handers who have made it withconsiderably less talent than right-handed peers who haven't, e.g. Strauss, Cook. They areusually actually right-handed people. Cook only has two attacking shots! Lara was a rareexample of a left-hander with a full range of natural strokes. I admire Michael Clarke a a rareexample of a left-handed person who bats right-handed.

Posted by contrast_swing on (February 10, 2015, 13:40 GMT)

Average is not the right descriptor for this analysis. Matches are not won by an averageperformances. What would be more interesting is the variance of the partnerships -- if L-Rpartnerships have a higher variance that would confirm the myth of L-R effectiveness --- sincewe tend to remember the success stories more than other way round.

So please provide the variance of the partnership data.

Posted by prewebhost_cheaphosting on (February 10, 2015, 10:46 GMT)

yes, its the best way to get control on bowling attack as bowler can not settle down himselfquickly

Posted by ThinkingCricket on (February 10, 2015, 9:34 GMT)

I am inclined to agree with the conclusion of this piece., but this argument is fundamentallyincomplete without SR data, given how vitally important scoring rates are in any limited oversgame. I don't think they would alter the result, but the conclusion can't be valid until that datais examined.

Posted by perl57 on (February 9, 2015, 22:40 GMT)

Generally bowlers are mostly adept at bowling to one side as they prepare themselves. This iswhere we have three greatest bowlers of all time. Akram, McGrath, and Steyn. They are likeRip Wan Winkles who can sleep thirty years and when woke up to bowl to Dave Warner or aSourav Ganguly they will channelize that line to get them out the first ball. But how many of thebowlers these days do we have who can do that? Jimmy Anderson is termed world class but heis so poor he ends up giving 90 runs in his quota of 10 sometimes. That's why right and leftbatsmen are always a profit.

Posted by ygkd on (February 9, 2015, 21:16 GMT)

My belief has always been that batting left-handed confers a massive advantage to kidsentering the system, but the further one gets the less of an advantage it becomes as thebowlers get better at counteracting it. That the same might apply for left-right partnershipswould not really surprise.

Login - Register to post comments -

SITEMAP | FEEDBACK | RSS | ABOUT US | CAREERS | PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF USE

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

2,108 people recommend this. Be the f irst of your friends.Recommend

Login

Login