![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The top team on points in each group progresses to the World Test Championship Final. In the event of a tie, teams will be separated by:
Cricket - Manifesto 25th February, 2010 17:59:34 [#] [0 comments]
Ratings - 24th February 2010
|
2nd Test | India | v | South Africa |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 1199.10 | 1199.03 | |
Form | +17.87 | +0.27 | |
Expected Margin | India by 62 runs | ||
Actual Margin | India by an innings and 57 runs | ||
Post-rating | 1209.46 | 1187.88 |
South Africa seem to have developed a penchant for failing to close out games. This time losing heavily when another 10 minutes of batting would have secured a draw. If they'd succeeded in two of their three recent failures they'd be currently ranked number one, but it is results that matter. While much was made of Amla's dual centuries and mountain of runs, the two key figures in this game were Steyn - whose 1/115 left the other South African bowlers to suffer the Indian onslaught - and Sehwag - whose 165 at almost a run-a-ball was the deciding factor in India being able to close out the game on a good batting deck. South Africa will rue their ineffective middle order and collapses, because a series win was there for the taking. Even their batting in the second innings, while admirable in its stoicism, was let down by a lack of intent to make India bat again, and earn themselves valuable time.
Only Test | New Zealand | v | Bangladesh |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 942.04 | 605.06 | |
Form | -9.32 | +41.30 | |
Expected Margin | New Zealand by 218 runs | ||
Actual Margin | New Zealand by 121 runs | ||
Post-rating | 937.62 | 618.17 |
Bangladesh were thoroughly beaten here, taking only twelve New Zealand wickets, for 121 fewer runs. Yet, this was still an admirable performance. Their lower order continues to show fight, and in Shakib, Mahmudullah, Mushfiqur Rahim and Tamin Iqbal, have the makings of a reasonable batting lineup. Their recent ratings climb reflects this, regaining heights not seen since they entered test cricket (and promptly plummeted under an avalanche of innings defeats). Their greatest liability is their tendency to get out to daft shots, particularly when things are going well, and a general weakness in their bowling, which won't easily be fixed. They should, however, be aiming to draw more games.
I-Cup Match | Afghanistan | v | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 336.95 | 188.31 | |
Form | +65.82 | -30.74 | |
Expected Margin | Afghanistan by 74 runs | ||
Actual Margin | Afghanistan by 6 wickets | ||
Post-rating | 359.64 | 177.74 |
Long may Afghanistan illuminate international cricket with their ability and spirit. Canada, by all rights, should have won this match with ease. Has any team lost from a 302 run first innings lead? What about a declaration 494 runs in front that, at the time, I considered conservative, if not negative. Yet they were beaten easily in the end, with the Afghans chasing throughout the final session at a run-a-ball to win by 6 wickets. Their lack of bowling depth in the absence of key members is a worry, but with the batsmen so capable of regular big scores, they are hard team to beat. With Zimbabwe lurking, but the other contenders well behind, the game against Scotland in August will probably determine if Afghanistan can make the final.
I-Cup Match | Kenya | v | Netherlands |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 351.54 | 230.88 | |
Form | +5.69 | -41.27 | |
Expected Margin | Kenya by 110 runs | ||
Actual Margin | Kenya by 5 wickets | ||
Post-rating | 353.20 | 220.31 |
For the first two days it was the Ryan ten Doeschate show, scoring a double ton and taking five wickets. Yet, Kenya prevailed in the first innings and the second, after the Dutch declared generously in the hope of forcing a result. It is a great pity that we aren't able to compare the quality of the batting and bowling in these associate games to the test teams. The size of the scores being made indicates that several teams have capable batsmen capable of consistent scores, but no side is showing any great ability with the ball, and that, ultimately, is where a competition like this will be won or lost.
Forthcoming series
2 Tests | Bangladesh | v | England |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 618.17 | 1129.63 | |
Form | +36.56 | +2.04 | |
Expected Margin | England by 206 runs |
A slight lull while we wait for this game, as it won't start until the 12th March. As always with games against Bangladesh, the home side will be happy to avoid an innings defeat (and in this context, improve their rating). Bangladesh's gradual improvement points towards a breakthrough victory against creditable opposition, but you'd never predict it, even against an English side missing its captain and opening bowler. Expect at least one day of Bangladeshi brilliance and accompanying articles of gnashing teeth amongst the English press-corp, even if their side ultimately prevails.
Rankings at 24th February 2010 | ||
---|---|---|
1. | Australia | 1211.56 |
2. | India | 1209.46 |
3. | South Africa | 1187.88 |
4. | England | 1129.63 |
5. | Sri Lanka | 1103.96 |
6. | Pakistan | 1073.90 |
7. | New Zealand | 937.62 |
8. | West Indies | 926.27 |
9. | Bangladesh | 618.17 |
10. | Zimbabwe | 556.79 |
11. | Ireland | 554.16 |
12. | Scotland | 470.23 |
13. | Namibia | 364.81 |
14. | Afghanistan | 359.64 |
15. | Kenya | 353.20 |
16. | U.S.A. | 296.99 |
17. | Uganda | 280.54 |
18. | Netherlands | 220.31 |
19. | Nepal | 179.54 |
20. | Canada | 177.74 |
21. | Bermuda | 170.84 |
22. | U.A.E. | 155.26 |
23. | Hong Kong | 147.15 |
24. | Cayman Is | 134.24 |
25. | Malaysia | 108.49 |
Shaded teams have played fewer than 2 games per season. Non-test team ratings are not comparable to test ratings as they don't play each other.
Cricket - Ratings - Test 24th February, 2010 13:57:37 [#] [0 comments]
Previously: Part 1 a b c d e f g h 2 a b
To conclude the discussion of principles, before moving onto the specifics of competition structure, where most discussions begin, I want to talk briefly about structuring competitions. Unlike FIFA, and more particularly UEFA, who seem to have hit upon a standard structure for tournaments that works, the ICC has repeatedly bungled the World Cup format, and is regularly flouting, or inundated by disastrous ideas for unworkable test championships.
Three general principles should be followed for any tournament: firstly, they should be succinct, being no longer than it takes to determine a winner; secondly, the "best team" should win, meaning the eventual result should not be subject to too much luck, and there need be enough games to demonstrate that the winner is, if not the best, at least worthy; and thirdly, the draw should be fair to all participants, allowing any team an opportunity to win, and if not to win, then to progress as far as their ability allows, rather than the certain teams - particularly those so-called "minnows" - being beset by endless challenges, while so-called "better" teams sail through the early rounds without a challenge.
From the perspective of a fan, a tournament should build a "narrative", following, in general, that most generic but exciting of literary tropes: The Quest. The quest works as an analogy because sporting teams are heroes, a tournament victory (or even qualification) a goals, and the tournament itself is a journey, usually physically, for the fans and players, and always metaphorically. The only difference with the literary quest is that, in this case, there are dozens of questers, most of whom will fail miserably, if occasionally heroically.
From those general principles and aim, some specific recommendations can be drawn. In no particular order:
Based on the above, the optimal size for a limited overs world cup is currently 12. 3 groups of 4, dropping to a super-six and then a final; or two groups of 6 with semi-finals and a final. The latter being a shorter tournament (20 days versus 27) but with a higher number of games against minnows. The preferred size should be 16, with 4 groups of 4, then 2 groups of 4, semi-finals and a final.
For a test match tournament, some other prescriptions should be followed, and a method for resolving drawn encounters decided upon:
Because test match series often end in draws, and, as the Shield final invariably demonstrates, it is exremely undesirable to allow a draw act as a win for one team, there neds to be a resolution method for drawn series.
Two possible scenarios can occur:
A series is drawn leading into the final game - a result is required.
The days of timeless tests are gone, but as limited overs cricket has demonstrated, that need not prevent a result based on time. In these one-off games 6 days should be set aside for play (allowing a maximum of 540 overs), but a each side should be, across their two innings, be limited to 250 overs each (allowing 40 overs on the final day to make up time lost in the event of rain). It is quite rare that a single side bats for 250 overs in a game, so it is unlikely that both sides will do the same. However, in the event that it occurs, the team batting third must compulsory declare at the 250 over mark, and the team with the most runs at the conclusion of the game wins. In the event that the team batting third uses up fewer than 250 overs, then the team batting last must score the runs inside the total time available (500 overs), not just their 250 overs.
In a two-test series, teams are tied 1-1 after both games
In this situation, where two results have occured (if the first test had been drawn, the first scenario would have been in play), the tie should be broken on aggregate run margin. A victory by an innings should be worth 250 runs. Each unbroken wicket in a chase should be worth 250/11 or 23 runs. The side with the largest victory of the two games is then considered the winner. The advantage of this method, apart from being simple, is that it is obvious for both teams what the goal is, and therefore what declaration might be required.
In the event that teams are still tied, then numerous tie-breakers are possible: net runs-per-wicket, total runs, and a coin toss.
In the final part of the manifesto, I will detail the substantially more complex format for world and regional test match championships.
Cricket - Manifesto 11th February, 2010 22:38:43 [#] [0 comments]
As the reality of an Indian defeat to South Africa became apparent, Ducking Beamers posed an interesting question on the nature of India's stay at number one on the official rankings. Given the official rankings are supposed to be transparent and simple, this should be a relatively easy question to answer. Unfortunately, the official rankings are neither transparent, nor simple. The formula is simple enough, but when assessing its merits as a predictor, something is lost.
Firstly, ignoring wikipedia's series points (which don't affect the maths) you'll note that the ranking varies depending on how closely matched a team is. There is a reason for this, which I will get to later, but let's first note the formula for a standard rating:
series_result * (rating_opp + 50) + series_result_opp * (rating_opp - 50 )
This can be simplified, greatly, as follows:
series_result * (rating_opp + 50) + (series_length - series_result) * (rating_opp - 50 )
= series_result * rating_opp + series_result * 50 + series_length * rating_opp - series_result * rating_opp - series_length * 50 + series_result * 50
= series_result * 100 + series_length * (rating_opp - 50 )
In other words, the rating is made of two parts. The result multiplied by 100, which holds true regardless of opposition (it is included in the the alternative methods as well) and a rating adjustment for opposition that takes no account of the result. Strange choice. I won't say this doesn't work, but it strikes me as odd.
How then, did India manage to get to number one. Well, oddly enough, on merit:
Aus Eng Ind Pak NZ SAf Sri WI Ban
win pt 2550 1925 2300 700 1000 2300 1950 800 375
opp pt 1725 2093.5 1920.5 1087.5 1071 1817 1270 757 0
str pt 326 60 130.5 44 -22.5 106.5 81 0 0
weak pt 0 0 0 0 213 0 0 677 -166.5
games 39 39 35 22.5 28.5 34.5 29 29 21.5
avg win 65.38 49.36 65.71 31.11 35.09 66.67 67.24 27.59 17.44
avg opp 52.59 55.22 58.6 50.29 44.26 55.75 46.59 48.93 -7.74
rating 117.97 104.58 124.31 81.4 79.35 122.42 113.83 76.52 9.7
The avg win and avg opp are the key fields here. Note that India have almost the highest avg win (which, broadly speaking is just a percentage of games won) and the highest opposition value. Their opponents have actually been harder than any other team's. (Note also, that the ratings above are a little approximate, due to rounding and other calculation difficulties).
Should we then all acknowledge India as (at least for the moment) the undisputed test number one? Possibly not. Because this rating system is a long way from being infallible.
Whither Bangladesh?
Let's start at the bottom. Bangladesh achieve an impossibly low rating, given there is an automatic 50 points (on average) for playing someone else. This is because they don't get this rating, because to do so, breaks other things. If Bangladesh was rated in the normal way, their rating would be close to 50 (practically no points for winning, but an opposition rating of 50). If a team played Bangladesh, then their maximum points from that contest would be 100 + Bangladesh's rating - 50, or about 100. In other words, playing rubbish sides hurts your ranking, because the 50 point calculation artificially limits it (the same applies to New Zealand, Pakistan and the West Indies now - the most you can get is 130 points).
To get around this the rating system does something odd - in a mismatch, it ignores the rating, and gives a team the points for winning, plus your rating minus 90 (or your rating above 100 plus 10, since the rating system is centred - sort of). But Bangladesh, being rubbish, get the win points plus their rating MINUS 10. Which is a negative number.
And in case you don't think this is a great injustice, note this: if Bangladesh were to perform as a below average side, winning 1 in 3 games (or roughly the same as the three teams above them) for three whole years (the entire measured period of the ratings), their ranking would be about 40, whereas those other teams would still be ranked about 80. That is not right.
For teams playing against inferior opposition, it is possible to endlessly increase your rating, provided that you maintain a win percentage of 90%. That number is assumed by the rating system, regardless of the quality of the lowly-ranked opposition. Thus if your ranking is high, it is much better to play Bangladesh than the West Indies, New Zealand or Pakistan, against whom a 90% win percentage is actually difficult.
Whither Australia?
Perhaps fewer readers will care about the much smaller injustice faced by Australia, but note that it might soon happen to India, and worry. When Australia had a ranking of 140, their opposition took 90 points per game played against them, regardless of result, while Australia got the opposition rating (around 50). In general, a team should garner as many points from each series as their ranking would expect, and so, while Australia remained a 140 team, their ranking remained at 140. Thus, when playing India, a 110 team, Australia would get 60 points from playing India, and 80 (on average) from wins.
But when Australia became equal with India (more or less), their points are redistributed, raising India up to a 120 team and lowering Australia down. Australia's points from winning drop, to just 50, and India's increase, up to 50 (from 30). But, in that immediate period the points from playing the opposition do not change, Australia continues to get 60 points for playing India, and India 90 for playing Australia. The rating change over-shoots a little.
Now, this should not matter, because, the rankings would balance out after a few series as different teams compete against each other. However, these ratings have a cut-off. Every August the ratings are rolled over, the fourth year is discarded, the second given half its value. What happens then, as happened last August, is that the parts of the average maintaining Australia's high rating, in spite of the over-shoot, are discarded, and the average drops far below what it should be. Next August, Australia's 5-0 Ashes triumph will disappear (average points: 160), and they'll probably drop to fourth again (or worse).
The oddest aspect of this though, is not that the cut-off has strange effects, but that a cut-off is entirely unnecessary. The ratings are balanced against each other; if a better rated team does worse than expected their rating will fall. Results from three years ago already have very little bearing on the rating, because more recent results pull a rating into place like a pendulum. A weighting for the new ranking, based on the number of games played in recent years is both sufficient and better.
Apart from being completely unreliable for teams which never win, or teams that always win, or teams that have had a recent change in their rating, or have done so in the past four years, the ICC ratings are moderately accurate measure of a team's performance. This shouldn't be surprising, however. Of the dozen or so rating systems in existence, all of them are pretty good at predicting the easy things. Deciding who is the best team out of India, Australia and South Africa however. That is not possible, and any rating system putting more than a couple of percentage points between them (as the ICC one does, incidentally) is wrong.
What astounds me about the ICC system though, is that in trying to be simple, it is actually complicated, and yet, despite that simplicity, it is in many ways, mathematically unsound. It works, in spite of itself. Which is an odd thing.
Cricket - Analysis 11th February, 2010 20:01:36 [#] [0 comments]
Recently completed matches
1st Test | India | v | South Africa |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 1210.60 | 1186.53 | |
Form | +17.87 | +0.27 | |
Expected Margin | India by 62 runs | ||
Actual Margin | South Africa by an innings and 6 runs | ||
Post-rating | 1199.10 | 1199.03 |
It is hard to fathom how a team with so much across the board talent could be so dependent on one player for results. But South Africa's performances on the past year bear remarkable resemblance to the form of Dale Steyn. Take nothing away from the batting of either Amla or Kallis, whose determined focus meant an under-strength India were only ever hunting for a draw. But Steyn, when on his game, is the difference between the South Africans routing the opposition by an innings, and struggling to bowl them out for 400 in either dig. Here, on a pitch offering little, Steyn was immense, destroying the Indian first innings with guile in one spell, and power in the second. An innings defeat is not as earth-shattering as being made out in some quarters - South Africa had one of their own barely a month ago - but you can't help that feel that India's ageing stars are on the way out, and that the new generation cannot possibly hope to reach the same level. While this series doesn't have the length to do itself justice, the final test retains some interest in the ordering of the top 3. An Indian victory by an innings and 172 runs is necessary for them to move to the top, for South Africa: 93 runs.
Forthcoming series
1 Test | New Zealand | v | Bangladesh |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 942.04 | 605.06 | |
Form | -9.32 | +41.30 | |
Expected Margin | New Zealand by 218 runs |
A series so short it shouldn't actually be sanctioned. A pity too, given that the previous match-up between these sides was closely fought, and that Bangladesh's recent improvement should make them competitive, even if they can't force a victory. Playing New Zealand in Hamilton is a different prospect to playing in their homeland, however, as their thrashing in the limited overs games showed. Expect Bangladesh's rating to continue to improve, but New Zealand to win out.
I-Cup Match | Afghanistan | v | Canada |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 336.95 | 188.31 | |
Form | +65.82 | -30.74 | |
Expected Margin | Afghanistan by 74 runs |
The neutral venue means that, in theory Afghanistan is less favoured to win this than perhaps they should be. Canada are not as bad a team as their rating reflects, but Afghanistan are a team on the move, consistently piling on large scores, and with a balanced team of young talented players. The more they play, and the more they win, the better they become. They should be considered raging favourites for this game, and as a consequence, carry the pressure that favouritism brings.
I-Cup Match | Kenya | v | Netherlands |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 351.54 | 230.88 | |
Form | +5.69 | -41.27 | |
Expected Margin | Kenya by 110 runs |
A must-win game for the Netherlands, having failed to register a win so far, despite pushing Afghanistan close. Kenya's chance of making the final appears doomed regardless of the result, but their form in this competition has been reasonable, and they remain a formidable and experienced opponent at this level. The Kenyans should win, but associate teams are nothing if not inconsistent, and it should be an interesting contest.
Rankings at 11th February 2010 | ||
---|---|---|
1. | Australia | 1211.56 |
2. | India | 1199.10 |
3. | South Africa | 1199.03 |
4. | England | 1129.63 |
5. | Sri Lanka | 1103.96 |
6. | Pakistan | 1077.62 |
7. | New Zealand | 942.04 |
8. | West Indies | 926.27 |
9. | Bangladesh | 605.06 |
10. | Zimbabwe | 556.79 |
11. | Ireland | 554.16 |
12. | Scotland | 470.23 |
13. | Namibia | 364.81 |
14. | Kenya | 351.54 |
15. | Afghanistan | 336.95 |
16. | U.S.A. | 296.99 |
17. | Uganda | 280.54 |
18. | Netherlands | 230.88 |
19. | Canada | 188.31 |
20. | Nepal | 179.54 |
21. | Bermuda | 170.84 |
22. | U.A.E. | 155.26 |
23. | Hong Kong | 147.15 |
24. | Cayman Is | 134.24 |
25. | Malaysia | 108.49 |
Shaded teams have played fewer than 2 games per season. Non-test team ratings are not comparable to test ratings as they don't play each other.
Cricket - Ratings - Test 11th February, 2010 11:01:39 [#] [0 comments]
Previously: Part 1 a b c d e f g h 2 a
Perhaps no aspect of cricket has been so neglected by the ICC as the introduction of sensible fixturing. Even disregarding the sudden quandary T20 has introduced, the international schedule is a mess of haphazard tours, marked by uneven spurts of games and odd lulls.
The problem rests with leaving the individual boards to determine the schedule, resulting in the popular teams sliding tours in whenever and wherever one might fit, yet still playing not much more frequently than one day per week. The less popular teams, bereft of opportunities, but unwilling to play each other, much less than that.
The introduction of universal domestic T20 windows offers the chance to correct two glaring problems. The first, obviously, to provide a space free from international commitments for players to play in what is likely to be both the most popular and lucrative form of the game. The second, to rationalise the international schedule so as to provide a balance between time spent playing, resting and travelling.
The first consideration when devising these windows must be an answer to the question: what is their appropriate size? The answer, I believe, is the minimum amount necessary to complete the tournaments outlined previously. Anything larger unnecessarily restricts the t20 game and will be under constant pressure to be reduced. Anything smaller and players will be forced to choose international commitments over a larger contract, which is bound to be problematic.
Taking first the non test championship years. These have scheduled T20 and ODI regional championships and world cup competitions, along with some sort of marquee tour at home and away, or world test championship qualifiers. Both test requirements extend to 6 tests per home summer, with regional limited over competitions consisting of 8-12 teams and the world championships 12-16. Any additional time might be used for friendly limited overs games, preparatory tour games, or travel.
One necessary change is the reduction of world cup length, long a bloated two month long march of irrelevant games leading to the semi-finals. The main cause of this, is the insistence of administrators (and no doubt tv companies) that each round of games (not involving a minnow) be played on a separate day. Thus 24 games (in say four groups of four), which might be dispensed with in just 5-12 days, are played over nearly a month. A reasonable length for a small regional championship is two weeks. For a world cup: three weeks. Allowing 7-8 weeks for six scheduled tests and a week of friendlies, the total international season, for one hemisphere can be reduced to 14 weeks. That leaves 12 for the domestic T20 competition. A regional test championship, being the most difficult to schedule (on account of it being conducted in the same hemisphere) would need to fit within that 14 week period. This is possible, as will be seen.
The second consideration is when each format is best scheduled, taking into account patterns of fan attendance and support, and the need to build a coherent narrative across a summer. Recent crowds in Australia suggest the folly of scheduling day games outside the traditional holiday period. Given T20 is played predominantly in the evenings, it is likely to be more resilient to scheduling, and is well suited to the start and tail-end of a summer. International cricket should therefore remain as the centre-piece, allowing the scheduling of test matches in their traditional slots - Boxing Day for example. Similarly, by scheduling internationals at the very beginning and end of each hemispherical summer, some overlap into each is theoretically possible (and potentially useful in years with a large number of intra-regional games).
The proposed schedule, therefore, is for a 3 week international break to be followed by the first half of the domestic T20 season (6 weeks), the international (and the bulk of the domestic first class season) for 8 weeks, followed by the concluding half of the domestic T20 season, and a final 3 weeks of internationals to conclude the summer.
Leaving aside the international schedule for a time, this has several implications for the domestic T20 game. Firstly, a 12 week season, with a week set aside for finals, would allow a 10-12 team home and away league to operate. Secondly though, and more importantly, in light of recent global developments, by allowing players to play a full season in one hemisphere, and therefore, one competition, we can put an end to the farce of players playing for multiple teams, in multiple competitions, which threatens to make the champions league a joke. Given the Indian summer can (at least theoretically) extend across the full 24 weeks of the domestic T20 window, a player would seem to have two choices: play for an Indian T20 outfit; play for a southern hemisphere outfit and a northern hemisphere outfit. The latter is undesirable, as it, again, could lead to divided loyalties. However, it is possible, even desirable, that the northern and southern hemisphere teams could be linked (in the manner suggested by the new Royals franchise), such that players signed for one are signed for the other, with the added bonus that while the individual summer competitions might conclude in 12 weeks, the champions league could be played across a year (with the "home" venue shifting with the seasons).
The T20 game's detractors might equate the franchising scenario being played out with other detrimental aspects of the T20's glitz and glamour: all show and no substance. I don't believe the T20 game need be an entertainment vehicle full of gimmicks. The debatably useful bowling and fielding restrictions, the cheer-leaders, music and fire-works, are all undesirable, but the game is still fundamentally skillful and entertaining, with enormous potential to develop cricket in hitherto unforeseen markets. Turning something as fundamentally valuable as a champions league into a gimmicky sideshow is not in the best interests of the sport (not just T20). The sooner the national boards get together to reform the scheduling the better.
Cricket - Manifesto 10th February, 2010 15:56:44 [#] [0 comments]