How often has conservative batting cost teams ODI (and Test) wins?

About a decade ago, I wrote an article in which I looked at some ODI matches in which the teams did not play to their capacity, left resources unutilised, and lost. Over a thousand matches have been played since, so I am revisiting that theme now.

It is true that, other than the five-Test simulation that I did for the Times of London a couple of decades ago, which also featured on ESPNcricinfo, most of my analyses are post-mortem. This lets me, in an unabashed manner, pontificate on what should or could have been done better. I can make statements that a team should have scored around 20 runs more when they batted without batting an eyelid. This article is not about winning teams but losing ones.

There have been ODIs across the years in which two scenarios happen. The first is where the team batting first scores, say, 280 for 2 or 3 and then loses narrowly. Alternatively, the chasing team scores, say, 250 for 4 when chasing 290 for 8, and falls short. The latter is less likely to happen nowadays since no self-respecting captain would want to be seen throwing in the towel like that. However, the former kind of match is still rampant - we had one as recently as August 2022. In this article, I will be looking at these matches where teams left runs on the field, and at the batters whose conservatism was responsible for this kind of approach. In the instances where the team batting first scored slowly, I will also mention the number of runs by which they fell short, based on the balls remaining when the target was reached. This is only an indicative number and doesn't involve rigorous calculations.

I ignore matches that were conceded, abandoned, involved a DLS result, or where fewer than 40 overs were played. It is impossible to gather clear information on these. I look at the matches in which teams batting first lost, having conceded three or fewer wickets themselves. This is the most relevant group and consists of 17 matches. I also look at matches in which the chasing team failed to complete a successful chase and lost four wickets or fewer. There are only seven matches in this category and some of these look ludicrous when perused a few decades later.

I have an interesting bonus at the end, where I extend the concept to Test matches.

1. Australia vs West Indies, Melbourne, 1984-85
West Indies 273 for 6 in 49.2 overs beat Australia 271 for 3 in 50 overs (Steve Smith 54 [101 balls], Graeme Wood 81 [119], Wayne Phillips 56 [37]) by four wickets

Australia could easily have added another 20 runs to the total in this game. Steve Smith (not that one) and Graeme Wood took well over 35 overs to put up an opening partnership of 135, and all the efforts of Allan Border and Wayne Phillips later in the innings proved insufficient. The blame could be laid squarely on the openers. As can be seen, Australia needed to only score a few more runs to potentially win the game.

2. India vs Australia, Jaipur, 1986-87
India 251 for 3 in 41 overs beat Australia 250 for 3 in 47 overs (Geoff Marsh 104 [139], David Boon 111 [118]) by seven wickets

Centuries by Marsh and Boon could not hide that Australia were far short of a competitive score in this match. Marsh, especially, was quite slow and there were not enough overs for the other batters to score of about a run a ball. Having said this, I must accept that this was one of those matches in which India might have chased down any score, thanks to a run-a-ball hundred from Kris Srikkanth.

3. India vs Pakistan, Jamshedpur, 1986-87
Pakistan 266 for 5 in 43.2 overs beat India 265 for 3 in 44 overs (Sunil Gavaskar 69 [86], Manoj Prabhakar 106 [121], Dilip Vengsarkar 54* [42]) by five wickets

India managed to breach the run-a-ball mark and must have felt that they had enough runs, only for a consistent Pakistan batting response to take the game away from them. It is tough to blame any of the Indian batters involved. None of them really dawdled and one has to conclude that it was just one of those days.

4. India vs New Zealand, Baroda, 1988-89
India 282 for 8 in 47.1 overs beat New Zealand 278 for 3 in 50 overs (John Wright 70 [96], Andrew Jones 57 [85], Mark Greatbatch 84* [67]) by two wickets

In this match too, it is difficult to blame any batter in the side batting first, New Zealand. The openers might not have set the stadium on fire but they were not too slow either. It was an extremely quick Mohammad Azharuddin century, made in 63 balls, that took India to a win with overs to spare.

5. Australia vs England, Hyderabad (India), 1989-90
England 243 for 3 in 47.3 overs beat Australia 242 for 3 in 50 overs (Geoff Marsh 54 [131], Dean Jones 50 [90], Peter Taylor 36* [41], Allan Border 84* [44]) by seven wickets

Australia finished woefully short of a good score, and this time some of the batters were definitely to blame. Marsh played arguably the worst ODI innings ever by an Australian batter. The effect of his 54 at a strike rate of 41 was compounded by a strange innings by Dean Jones, and it was an overall terrible performance. Border's near-200 strike rate later could not save them. This was almost certainly among the worst ODI matches Australia have ever played.

6. India vs England, Jaipur, 1992-93
England 224 for 6 in 48 overs beat India 223 for 3 in 48 overs (Vinod Kambli 100* [149], Mohammad Azharuddin 6 [28], Sachin Tendulkar 82* [81]) by four wickets

India dawdled in the first half of their innings and although Tendulkar scored a run-a-ball 82, he could not make up for Kambli's very slow hundred. Kambli's was a strange innings, coming as it did from a strokeplayer. It was amazing that England needed all of 48 overs to win the match. A dot off the last delivery might have won India the game since the "fewer wickets lost" criterion might very well have been in force at that time.

7. Pakistan vs West Indies, World Cup, Melbourne, 1992
West Indies 221 for 0 in 46.5 overs beat Pakistan 220 for 2 in 50 overs (Ramiz Raja 102* [158], Javed Miandad 57* [61]) by ten wickets

This was an important World Cup match and Pakistan collectively shot themselves in the foot. In an eminently forgettable innings, they scored 220 and West Indies overhauled the score without losing a wicket. Ramiz scored his hundred at a pitiful strike rate of 64. Aamer Sohail scored at around 50. Only Miandad scored at around a run a ball. And it is worth remembering that 20 of West Indies' overs were from journeymen spinners.

8. India vs Sri Lanka, World Cup, Delhi, 1996
Sri Lanka 272 for 4 in 48.4 overs beat India 271 for 3 in 50 overs (Sachin Tendulkar 137 [137], Mohammad Azharuddin 72* [80], Manoj Prabhakar 7 [36]) by six wickets

In the 1996 World Cup, India made what seemed a competitive total, but it proved just a few runs short. One must say that India really could have pressed on but it's tough to blame any single player. After all, Tendulkar scored an excellent run-a-ball hundred, and Azhar a good fifty. Do we blame Prabhakar for his slow start?

9. England vs Sri Lanka, Adelaide, 1998-99
Sri Lanka 303 for 9 in 49.4 overs beat England 302 for 3 in 50 overs (Graeme Hick 126* [118], Neil Fairbrother 78* [71], Nick Knight 45 [74], Alec Stewart 39 [33]) by one wicket

As we approach the turn of the millennium, the scenarios change. It was clear by then that scores of 300 were not as impregnable as before. England scored 302, and a strange innings by Sri Lanka, with quite a few batters failing, saw that score breached with the last wicket on the block - a situation similar to the previous match. Do we blame Knight for his slow 45? Hick was very good, as was Fairbrother.

10. India vs South Africa, Kochi, 1999-00
India 302 for 7 in 49.4 overs beat South Africa 301 for 3 in 50 overs (Gary Kirsten 115 [123], Herschelle Gibbs 111 [127], Kallis 37* [30]) by three wickets

Almost a mirror image of the previous match featured. Two hundreds, both at a good pace, and a couple of cameos led to a 300-plus score that was overhauled by a steady team innings in which no batter failed. Could South Africa's century-makers have sped up a little at the end of their innings? It seems quite unfair to suggest that.

11. South Africa vs Australia, Port Elizabeth, 2001-02
Australia 330 for 7 in 49.1 overs beat South Africa 326 for 3 in 50 overs (Graeme Smith 84 [103], Nicky Boje 47 [48], Jacques Kallis 80* [59], Jonty Rhodes 71* [50]) by three wickets

South Africa scored 326 here, with a decent opening, and two excellent finishing innings by Kallis and Rhodes. This is one instance when I do not want to even mention one South African batter in non-flattering terms. Such things do happen.

12. South Africa vs West Indies, Johannesburg, 2003-04
South Africa 310 for 6 in 49.4 overs beat West Indies 304 for 2 in 50 overs (Chris Gayle 152* [153], Shivnarine Chanderpaul 85 [114], Ricardo Powell 49* [24]) by four wickets

Another match like the one before this - the fourth of five. West Indies' total of 304 ought to have been sufficient, but they should probably have got to 320 for 5. You cannot blame Gayle; his innings was fantastic. And Powell played a blinder. But Chanderpaul had a 30-ball difference between runs and balls in his innings. He certainly gave away what was gained by the others. South Africa, knowing the target, could plan suitably and take losing wickets in their stride.

13. India vs Australia, Visakhapatnam, 2010-11
India 292 for 5 in 48.5 overs beat Australia 289 for 3 in 50 overs (Michael Clarke 111* [139], Michael Hussey 69 [77], Cameron White 89* [49]) by five wickets

Shaun Marsh and Tim Paine scored a total of nine runs in 35 balls. Michael Clarke was minus 28 balls in terms of his strike rate. All this effectively negated Cameron White's 89-run blitz. This time the Australia batters certainly needed to speed up and can share the blame.

14. Bangladesh vs Pakistan, Asia Cup, Mirpur, 2013-14
Pakistan 329 for 7 in 49.5 overs beat Bangladesh 326 for 3 in 50 overs (Anamul Haque 100 [132], Imrul Kayes 59 [75], Mushfiqur Rahim 51* [33], Shakib Al Hasan 44* [16]) by three wickets

For Bangladesh to score 326 and lose will have been heartbreaking. The fantastic cameo by Shakib could not negate the 32-ball deficit in Anamul Haque's innings. On another day this might have been a match-winning score.

15. Australia vs India, Perth, 2015-16
Australia 310 for 5 in 49.2 overs beat India 309 for 3 in 50 overs (Rohit Sharma 171 [163], Virat Kohli 91 [97]) by five wickets

Rohit Sharma played a magnificent innings at better than a run a ball. A look at the Australian innings would indicate that they did not play any better than India, but they played smartly, and just did it a wee bit better.

16. South Africa vs Pakistan, Port Elizabeth, 2018-19
Pakistan 267 for 5 in 49.1 overs beat South Africa 266 for 2 in 50 overs (Hashim Amla 108* [120], Reeza Hendricks 45 [67], Rassie van der Dussen 93 [101] by five wickets

This was a match of the sort that could have been played a couple of decades ago. South Africa managed to score only 266. Amla consumed 12 more balls than he scored runs, while the balls-runs difference was 22 for Hendricks and eight for van der Dussen. It is no wonder that South Africa fell 34 runs short of 300. It was very poor batting, especially by the standards of these days, with most batters having T20 experience.

17. Zimbabwe vs Bangladesh, Harare, 2022
Zimbabwe 307 for 5 in 48.2 overs beat Bangladesh 303 for 2 in 50 overs (Tamim Iqbal 62 [88], Litton Das 81 [89], Anamul Haque 73 [62], Mushfiqur Rahim 52* [49]) by five wickets

This match was played as recently as a month ago. Four of the batters had decent strike rates but unfortunately the captain, Tamim Iqbal, consumed 26 extra balls than he scored runs, and that was not the need of the hour.

Readers are going to complain that in some of the matches mentioned below, the chasing teams just gave up and went to bed. I understand that. But I have gone strictly by the definition and chronicled the matches, laying the brickbats where they deserve to go. The only change is that I have upped the bar to four wickets or fewer for the losing team.

18. England vs India, World Cup, Lord's, 1975
England 334 for 4 in 60 overs beat India 132 for 3 in 60 overs (Sunil Gavaskar 36* [174], Eknath Solkar 8 [34], Gundappa Viswanath 37 [59]) by 202 runs

I can hear a few readers complain, "Oh, not that game again". But I cannot help it. The match meets all the criteria. England scored heavily and India, like a deer caught in the headlights, seemed to concede the match mentally during the lunch break. Except that they had to play their innings. Gavaskar set up a tent on the ground and proceeded to score a run every five balls for the next 200 minutes or so. Contrast that with how Viswanath played. An eminently forgettable day for India. However, it must be said that eight years later India made up for this nadir moment.

19. Australia vs Sri Lanka, World Cup, The Oval, 1975
Australia 328 for 5 in 60 overs beat Sri Lanka 276 for 4 in 60 overs (Sunil Wettimuny 53 [102], Anura Tennekoon 48 [71], Michael Tissera 52 [72]) by 52 runs

This match was nowhere near the previous one in terms of the direness of the chase. Australia scored a match-winning total but Sri Lanka fell just over 50 runs short. It is quite possible that they were not capable of scoring at the required rate. Wettimuny was painfully slow but the others were somewhat better.

20. Pakistan vs Australia, Lahore, 1982-83
Pakistan 234 for 3 in 40 overs beat Australia 206 for 4 in 40 overs (Bruce Laird 91* [120], Kim Hughes 64 [67] by 28 runs

Pakistan scored at nearly a run a ball in this 40-over match. Australia, surprisingly, seemed to give up before their innings began. Laird was quite slow and none of the others looked like the would make up. Border's dismissal for a duck did not help. However, it should be remembered that this was back in the days when batters did not get the protection they do nowadays. It is quite possible that Imran Khan and company might have engaged in a lot of short-pitched bowling.

21. Australia vs India, Sydney, 1985-86
Australia 292 for 6 in 50 overs beat India 192 for 4 in 50 overs (Sunil Gavaskar 92* [144]) by 100 runs

After Australia posted a very good, but not imposing, total in their 50 overs, India played a strange innings and fell exactly 100 runs short. Gavaskar had a negative equation of 52. Mohinder Amarnath scored 16 in 54 balls and Azhar 17 off 40. India hit only four fours and two sixes in their total. It seemed like a "No, we are going for a draw" innings.

22. Sri Lanka vs West Indies, World Cup, Karachi, 1987
West Indies 360 for 4 in 50 overs beat Sri Lanka 169 for 4 in 50 overs (Asanka Gurusinha 36 [108], Arjuna Ranatunga 52* [93], Duleep Mendis 37* [45]) by 191 runs

What India do on Monday, Sri Lanka do on Tuesday. This is one (uncharitable) way of explaining what happened in this World Cup game in Karachi. Granted that Viv Richards just about destroyed Sri Lanka; granted that there was a one-in-a-million chance that they would win; granted that no one knew what to do - none of it explains Gurusinha's awful innings, Ranatunga's ridiculous finish, and Aravinda de Silva's forgettable cameo (9 off 27). All in all, a very poor effort. It took Sri Lanka nine years to erase this horrendous effort, in the same country.

23. South Africa vs Zimbabwe, Potchefstroom, 2006-07
South Africa 418 for 5 in 50 overs beat Zimbabwe 247 for 4 in 50 overs (Terry Duffin 88 [134], Hamilton Masakadza 54 [53], Chamu Chibhabha 46 [75]) by 171 runs

What does one do when you have just been handed the lesson of a lifetime, with Mark Boucher taking your bowlers for 147 runs in 68 balls after the openers have blazed their way to eighties? Duffin decided to get some batting practice while the other batters played within their limitations and the team satisfied themselves with the fact that they lost only four wickets - and qualified for selection in this analysis. One can only sympathise with Zimbabwe.

24. Zimbabwe vs Pakistan, Bulawayo, 2018
Pakistan 364 for 4 in 50 overs beat Zimbabwe 233 for 4 in 50 overs (Prince Masvaure 39 [53], Ryan Murray 47 [70], Peter Moor 44* [54]) by 131 runs

This match is a virtual repeat of the previous one. This time it was Pakistan who reached an unassailable total. And the Zimbabwe batters were consistent to a fault - all six of them scored between 25 and 47. And it must be said that they hit more sixes than the Pakistani batters - nine against six.

Now, for a bonus. Using a complex series of selection criteria, I have identified a few Tests in which the team batting last made no efforts to push for a win, though the required rate was reasonable. It is quite possible that a few more overs might have been available for the batting team, since some of these matches were eventually probably called off during the mandatory overs. On the other hand, it is also possible that rain might have stopped play. And in some cases, the series might have been on the line. All things considered, an interesting collection of Tests.

A summary of the criteria: four wickets or fewer lost in the fourth innings, target within 100 runs of the final score, target below 300, and a starting required rate of below four an over.

1. England vs Australia, Old Trafford, 1893
Australia 204 and 236 drew with England 243 and 118 for 4 in 52.3 overs (target 198)

It could be argued that in 1893, a scoring rate of just below four was well-nigh impossible to achieve. However, it must be mentioned that the England openers, Andrew Stoddart with 42 in 112 balls, and WG Grace, with 45 in 120, shut the doors from the first ball. The bowling was tough, it must be conceded, with Hugh Trumble, Charlie Turner and George Giffen in the Australia line-up.

2. West Indies vs India, Kingston, 1952-53
India 312 and 444 drew with West Indies 576 and 92 for 4 in 47 overs (target 181)

A minimum of 47 overs and an enticing target of 181 were not sufficient for a very strong West Indies batting line-up to make a go of it. Even Everton Weekes scored only 36 off 110.

3. India vs Australia, Kolkata, 1959-60
India 194 and 339 drew with Australia 331 and 121 for 2 in 52 overs (target 203)

A minimum of 52 overs and a target of 203 were too much for the visiting team against a very accurate and potent Indian spin attack. Les Favell and Neil Harvey scored at well below three runs per over.

4. Australia vs England, Sydney, 1962-63
England 321 and 268 for 8 drew with Australia 349 and 152 for 4 in 72 overs (target 241)

This Ashes decider was a strange match. Australia had 72-plus overs to score 241, a rate of around 3.5. But they made no attempt to force the pace. Bill Lawry scored a typical 45 off 170 balls, Harvey 28 in 106, and Peter Burge a slow 52 in 197. Perhaps the early dismissal of Bob Simpson forced their hands.

5. New Zealand vs England, Auckland, 1965-66
New Zealand 296 and 129 drew with England 222 and 159 for 4 in 75 overs (target 204)

This is probably the strangest match in this collection. England had 75 overs to score 204 runs, a required rate below three, against a fairly pedestrian bowling attack. But they made absolutely no attempt to even get close to the required rate in a series decider. Peter Parfitt scored 30 in 114, Colin Cowdrey 27 in 86, Mike Smith 30 in 91, and Jim Parks 45 in 101. At this distance I cannot fathom England's strategy in this game.

6. India vs Australia, Kolkata, 1979-80
Australia 442 and 151 for 6 dec drew with India 347 and 200 for 4 in 63.2 overs (target 247)

India needed just under 250 in 63 overs, which was a tough task and probably explains why they chose to play it safe. Chetan Chauhan scored 50 in 130 and Yashpal Sharma 85 in 117.

7. Sri Lanka vs South Africa, Colombo (SSC), 2000
South Africa 279 and 241 for 9 dec drew with Sri Lanka 258 and 195 for 4 in 67.1 overs (target 263)

At home, Sri Lanka needed 263 in 67 overs, a required rate just below four. After a poor start, they shut shop. Mahela Jayawardene (101 in 183) and Aravinda de Silva (41 in 94) made sure that they would not lose.

8. New Zealand vs West Indies, Dunedin, 2013-14
New Zealand 609 for 9 dec and 79 for 4 in 30 overs (target 112) drew with West Indies 213 and 507

Because this is a recent match, I have more data available - the only one among this lot. Hence I can say with certainty that New Zealand were 79 for 4 at tea when rain set in and that they are not to be blamed.

A different set of criteria will fetch a different set of Test matches. However, I am confident it won't be too different from this lot. Looking at these Tests today, it seems strange that the teams did not think that there was a chance of an unexpected win at all. Yes, that came with the slight chance of an unexpected loss too. But the mindset of "come what may, we should not lose" guided most teams' decisions maybe until around the dawn of this century.

Talking Cricket Group
Any reader who wishes to join the general-purpose cricket ideas exchange group of this name that I started last year can email me a request for inclusion, providing their name, place of residence, and what they do.