Caesar
Member
Left Handed Batsmen
Something I was thinking about the other day. The percentages of specialist/'primary' batsmen in each current Test XI that are LHBs are as follows, with the assumption that all sides carry 4 specialist bowlers and the keeper is expected to bat. I didn't bother with ZIM or BAN as I don't even know who's in their side these days.
Australia - 3 of 7 or 43%
England - 2 of 7 or 29%
South Africa -3 of 7 or 43%
West Indies - 3 of 7 or 43%
India - 2 of 7 or 29%
Pakistan - 2 of 7 or 29%
Sri Lanka - 2 of 7 or 29%
New Zealand - 2 of 7 or 29%
I have restricted myself to recognised batsmen because there's an argument that bowling selection may be slightly biased towards left-handers due to natural advantage (either as spinners or seamers). Indeed, if you include the batting preference of 8-11 the percentage remains consistent or increases for (I think) every side.
Now, consider that left-handedness is commonly found in seven to thirteen percent of any country's adult population.
Even allowing for the very small samples we're dealing with, this is a consistent overrepresentation - and one that's typically borne out if you widen your view to first class and limited overs sides. What's the explanation? Further muddying the issue is that batting preference often does not correspond to 'handedness' in other areas of life (such as writing, or even bowling).
Now there are some notable exceptions (e.g. Hussey remodeled his action to emulate Border). But there must be more to it than this. Are left-handers more adept batsmen? Does batting lefthanded give batsmen an inherent advantage over their competitors? Or do good batsmen naturally gravitate towards batting as southpaws for some reason (e.g. greater control with the dominant hand on top)?
Interesting little factoid to consider. Combining with the bowlers, us of the sinister persuasion are certainly overrepresented on the cricket field.
Something I was thinking about the other day. The percentages of specialist/'primary' batsmen in each current Test XI that are LHBs are as follows, with the assumption that all sides carry 4 specialist bowlers and the keeper is expected to bat. I didn't bother with ZIM or BAN as I don't even know who's in their side these days.
Australia - 3 of 7 or 43%
England - 2 of 7 or 29%
South Africa -3 of 7 or 43%
West Indies - 3 of 7 or 43%
India - 2 of 7 or 29%
Pakistan - 2 of 7 or 29%
Sri Lanka - 2 of 7 or 29%
New Zealand - 2 of 7 or 29%
I have restricted myself to recognised batsmen because there's an argument that bowling selection may be slightly biased towards left-handers due to natural advantage (either as spinners or seamers). Indeed, if you include the batting preference of 8-11 the percentage remains consistent or increases for (I think) every side.
Now, consider that left-handedness is commonly found in seven to thirteen percent of any country's adult population.
Even allowing for the very small samples we're dealing with, this is a consistent overrepresentation - and one that's typically borne out if you widen your view to first class and limited overs sides. What's the explanation? Further muddying the issue is that batting preference often does not correspond to 'handedness' in other areas of life (such as writing, or even bowling).
Now there are some notable exceptions (e.g. Hussey remodeled his action to emulate Border). But there must be more to it than this. Are left-handers more adept batsmen? Does batting lefthanded give batsmen an inherent advantage over their competitors? Or do good batsmen naturally gravitate towards batting as southpaws for some reason (e.g. greater control with the dominant hand on top)?
Interesting little factoid to consider. Combining with the bowlers, us of the sinister persuasion are certainly overrepresented on the cricket field.