The world of ODIs is a kind of Through the Looking-Glass Land for me. All I learned about performance analysis in Test matches doesn't apply in quite the same way. Test batsmen need the ability to defend their wickets above all else; ODI batsmen have to keep an eye on the scoring rate. Likewise, ODI bowlers are not under the same pressure to take wickets, but do their teams no favours if they are expensive.

You may recall that I posed the question of whether New Zealand's problems scoring runs were down to their batsmen or down to South Africa's bowlers. I should have done all the analysis at once, because now it is as clear as crystal to me. Let's look at a table:

				Player		Overs		Economy
				Pollock		29		2.62
				Nel		28		5.86
				Botha		25.67		4.79

				Vettori		30		3.63
				Mills		28		3.64
				Gillespie	27		6.04

The average economy of three most-bowled South Africans is 4.39, and that of the New Zealanders is 4.40. But Pollock's figures stand out in dramatic contrast. That 2.62 is phenomenally low for a series where both sides averaged a 4.83 economy. Pollock also bowled the most maidens of anyone, with one more than Gillespie's 5. Pollock, one of my favourite players, probably ought to have been man of the series, or at least bowler of the series. He was the difference maker in shutting down the New Zealand bats.

My overall impression of this series was that it was far tighter than it appeared at the time - it was pretty clear early on into South Africa's innings at Newlands that they were going to win. Looking at the series overall, New Zealand's team bowling average, economy and strike rate were better than South Africa's. New Zealand had a higher team Innings Average. But South Africa won. I put that down to luck in individual matches, or perhaps to home field advantage.