Stats Interesting

Who will win the NatWest Series final on Saturday 12 July 2003 at Lord's? This is the simple question I put to you.

We are helped by the fact that we already know it must be either South Africa or England (or perhaps both?).

The visitors have been known to draw the odd crucial game. However, as neither Allan Donald or Lance Klusener will be part of Saturday's proceedings and Messrs Duckworth and Lewis are unlikely to strike the same team twice, we will assume that a winner will emerge. There can be only one...

To give this article an air of authoritativeness, I will resort to some statistics.

If you look at all the bowlers who have taken wickets in the tournament, you will find that South Africa have ten in that group and England only five.

South Africa have taken a total of 41 wickets in the tournament and England only 31. This is skewed by England's abandoned fixture against Zimbabwe, but it still leaves the visitors somewhere in the lead.

Makhaya Ntini is head and shoulders the leading wicket-taker in the tournament (with 13), while the likes of James Anderson and Andrew Flintoff follow in a gaggle (with eight).

England have a slightly higher concentration of bowlers at the top of the wicket-taking list and their averages are lower. This suggests that South Africa's batsmen will be more consistently under pressure on Saturday, whereas England will want to focus on keeping Ntini at bay and score off the rest.

A look at the 20 highest run-scorers in the tournament reveals seven "Sath Efficans" and seven "das Englanders" in their ranks. The former have scored an aggregate 1141 runs, while the latter have scored 915.

So England appear outgunned in the runs and in the wickets departments. To develop the thus far simple arithmetic further... if you were to take the average of the strike rates of the top five batsmen of each team, you would have: a complex sum and a revealing statistic. England's average strike rate is 72.71. South Africa's average strike rate 82.27.

What does this mean? South Africa are scoring more runs, faster. Furthermore, they have the tournament's pre-eminent batsman in their ranks: Jacques Kallis. In two fewer innings, he has scored almost 100 runs more than second-placed Marcus Trescothick.

Further furthermore, South Africa have a very healthy ODI record against England.

But there is plenty in the hosts' favour. England have won 15 of the 27 ODIs they have played at Lords and lead SA 2-1 in this tournament. SA are still gun shy after the World Cup, whereas the hosts can play under the pressure-less guise of "building a team for the future."

"As ever, the toss will be vital." A line taken from every match preview ever written in the history of writing ever. But still, it is vital. The form of this tournament suggests that it is difficult to bat first, while there is still a bit in the pitch. It is also easier to chase, as neither attack has dominated the opposition batsmen.

Therefore, whoever wins the toss, if they are sensible and have read this article, should bowl first.

But enough of this reasoned statistics lark. You will be happy to know that, reading from the Prophecies of Nostradamus, Century I, I find that:

"Because of the storm at sea the foreign ship
will approach an unknown port.
Notwithstanding the signs of the palm branches,
afterwards there is death and pillage. Good advice comes too late."

This is a random passage appointed by fate - or at least by Google - and it is the last sentence to which I must point your attention.

It is clear that South Africa's stormy political situation is being referred to in that first line. They arrive as a young team that has little experience of English conditions and are unsure of the right length to bowl. Expecting a media onslaught, due to the axing of Shaun Pollock and omission of Lance Klusener, they are immediately on the defensive, despite the fair mindedness of the English media.

Whose death and pillage there is to follow the final, depends on who takes my good advice. Nostradamus does not exactly specify the winner, but I reckon it is South Africa by a thin metaphysical hair.

by Jeff Friedlander