T20 Ratings - April 2010 - Pre-warmup edition
Russell Degnan

The World Twenty 20 is upon us, but this post is not a preview, merely an update. I've redone the ratings from scratch, to reflect the existence of international games previously outside my purview, notably the Asian affiliate/associate tournaments. The ratings include every game listed on cricinfo, under either the Minor Cricket (which includes unofficial warm-ups) or Twenty 20 match headings. As a consequence, the number of teams is now 31 (although Namibia's one and only T20 game was abandoned) and the test team base ratings had to be doubled to keep China's beginners from going negative.

Two other trends are quite noticeable, contrasting strongly with internationals at a test/first class level. Firstly, since the end of the last world cup, only 18 of the 92 international T20 games have been between test sides. Unlike in other forms of the game, the affiliates and associates are experienced competitors. Secondly, the bulk of those games have been played in the U.A.E. - 63 in all. This may be just an anomaly of scheduling. The U.A.E. hosted both the non-test qualification tournament and the Asian T20 Cup, in addition to home games for Pakistan and the U.A.E., but the playing of this many matches under the nose of ICC officials indicates that it is seen as the best means of development.


T20 Rankings at 25th April 2010FormGames
1.Australia2055.811.414.0
2.South Africa2044.824.711.3
3.Pakistan2040.65.213.4
4.Sri Lanka2002.7-4.411.2
5.India1977.8-16.68.3
6.England1974.1-6.010.2
7.New Zealand1955.13.016.1
8.West Indies1907.7-40.611.6
9.Zimbabwe1779.753.84.0
10.Bangladesh1726.9-40.76.0
11.Ireland1588.42.715.5
12.Afghanistan1510.615.916.5
13.Netherlands1493.3-30.79.0
14.Canada1484.9-56.19.8
15.Bermuda1469.6-39.90.8
16.Scotland1460.5-28.512.5
17.Kenya1458.017.69.9
18.U.S.A.1445.9-52.15.0
19.U.A.E.1370.123.717.5
20.Oman1116.122.58.5
21.Uganda1063.124.46.4
22.Kuwait1043.02.68.5
23.Nepal1005.012.57.0
24.Namibia1000.00.00.0
25.Malaysia946.9-31.37.0
26.Hong Kong907.2-46.97.0
27.Singapore841.0-9.47.0
28.Qatar836.030.57.0
29.Bahrain702.3-8.86.0
30.Saudi Arabia614.435.27.0
31.China162.6-50.05.0

The T20 ratings are both volatile and subject to starting rating. Shading indicates level of certainty.

Cricket - Ratings - T20 28th April, 2010 18:22:20   [#] [0 comments] 

Notes on the IPL
Russell Degnan

Cricket tournaments continue to strike the wrong rhythm in their organisational structure. There is a sense in the past few days of the IPL winding down, when it really should be gearing up for the finals. Several commentators, albeit ones with a distaste for the IPL already, have noted how the tournament seems to be dragging on. The problem lies in the organisers temporal separation of game times, putting one or two per day, to allow the television to show every game. In a cup tournament this is no great problem, but the IPL is a league, played over 14 rounds. The normal rhythm of anticipation, watching and analysis is disrupted by having a game every day for an extended period of time, and the viewer is quickly burnt out.

The concluding round showed this clearly. Leading into the final game for each side, six teams were playing off for just three places. What should have been an exciting four games in two days (or even better, the same day), was dragged out over three days and five games, with teams dribbling into the final four, or out of contention, with the final game shorn of meaning and star players. Partly, this is a function of trying to squeeze such a high number of games into such a short period, but it is worth comparing the week-long build up that proceeds the AFL grand final, or the momentum gathering lead-in to the final day of the English Premier League to see what the IPL is missing.


While some view the IPL's continued success and growth as a grave threat to things they hold most dear, I can't help but think that cricket in general, and the players in particular, have been missing a trick for the past 30 years. I confess to having lost interest in 50 over cricket some time ago, but it can't be denied that it was the engine of the sport for the past three decades, and was capable of pulling in large crowds long before T20 existed.

Yet, the response by administrators, and more particularly investors, to the IPL is a slavish copying of the IPL system. The conclusion from this behaviour therefore, is that the barrier to financial riches at a domestic level for many years was:

  • Fifty-50 cricket, as opposed to twenty-20.
  • The existing county and state representative sides

While I'm willing to admit T20 is a superior form of the game to F50. It is not that much superior to account for the IPL or Big Bash crowd size, in comparison to their F50 equivalents. And franchises make little to no sense, given the successful state-based Australian and county competitions, and the fact that a franchise competition will play at the same grounds, with the same base audience, and the same television coverage.

Which is why I believe that cricket has been missing something for a long time. Namely, that a domestic tournament is economically superior , provided it is not subjugated by a competing national competition. I have discussed previously, in general terms, the advantages a domestic competition has over national competition in the manifesto, but it is worth doing so in a more illustrative fashion. Essentially therefore, I am arguing that the actual barriers are three-fold:

  • The national model of cricket competition.
  • Allied to a suppression of domestic competitions through the denial of television coverage and top players.
  • And less importantly, the popularity of T20 over F50 cricket.


Assume that the national and domestic models of competition are drawing on the same audience. At first glance, you'd assume that their total revenues would be the same. From the perspective of a cricket board, however, the national model is vastly superior. Players wages, long the bane of every board, are calculated in an uncompetitive market - a player cannot switch nationality - and therefore, they are depressed, relative to other non-national sports.

Revenues are not equal between the two models, however, because there is a limit to the number of games that can be played by a single national team. The diagram below splits the revenue streams for the national model. A national team, limited to playing every 2-3 days, will draw in the total cricket watching television audience (blue), but only a small fraction of the potential ticket revenue (yellow) who will be in the wrong city for the bulk of games. Additionally, each of those grounds must be paid for, raising base costs and leaving stadiums either underused (Australian grounds) or under-developed (English grounds). Merchandise revenue (orange) is a small but important factor.

In a domestic model, by contrast, the television revenue is fragmented across the different teams, each of whom receive a smaller fraction than the national team did by itself. The overall television revenue (blue), however, is larger, because more teams allow more games to be scheduled, and to target local markets more effectively. Merchandise revenue (orange) is split between the eight teams and is relatively miniscule, but the ticket revenue is vastly expanded. Games are played more regular at every stadium, and while the stadium attendance is still a fraction of the television audience, the payment per person is much higher.


Television companies are the winners under a national model. They can craft a "summer of cricket" with high average audiences and low overheads. They are also able, by tying the finances of the national board to the television revenue stream, to dictate what games are played and when, in order to maximize profits. The national board may be slightly worse off financially under a domestic model, but they can use their leverage over the competition to get franchises to pay (as the IPL does), freeing them from the yoke of the television company. A seemingly acute problem in England now, with the threat of enforced free-to-air coverage could significantly lower the ECB's fragile revenue stream.

But it is the players who benefit most, able to attract progressively higher bids for their services, and scoop a larger share of an expanded total revenue. Which is ironic, because for the past thirty years, it has been the players who first tied the fortunes of cricket to the national model who have been telling us how much better off players are in these modern times. A dominant domestic model, based around F50 cricket, was probably feasible years ago, but was continually stymied by the blanket national coverage which crowded out any alternatives, and allowed players wages to be suppressed.

Not that any nation has reverted to a domestic model, or even seems likely to in the immediate future. But ultimately, the players are what the public comes to see, and therefore, cricket's structure is determined by when, where and what they want to play. That's good news, for the lovers of test cricket. As long as players continue to respect it, it won't die, and the IPL is no threat to its continued existence. But it might be bad news to fans of yearly 7-game ODI series between India and Australia, and to national boards who want to eke every penny out of centrally contracted players and their travelling circus.


The list of things that irritate people who express a distaste for T20 is remarkably similar to the list of things that are entirely unnecessary to the success of the format:

  • The cheerleaders are naff, which is not to say that they couldn't be good, but that the billion dollar IPL has done a more half-arsed job of cheer-leading than the Morwell Falcons used to.
  • Why does a competition based around local rivalries encourage cheering for the away team: through music, cheer-leading, scoreboard graphics and so forth. A six by Mumbai at Eden Gardens should be treated with the same muted applause as a goal by Liverpool at Old Trafford, not forced cheering.
  • What, actually, does music bring to a game of cricket. Can anyone produce a study that shows the fans like it?
  • What value do 6 overs of field restrictions bring to the game? If they were done away with, what would change tactically? Does the absence of an answer to that question make the game better or worse?
  • Similarly, what value are bowling restrictions? Why don't commentators who bemoan a lack of opportunities for "great spells of bowling" or "contests between bat and ball" also note that the greatest impediment to both is the 4 over restriction. Remove that and all sorts of tactics, both in the game and in selection, come into play.
  • Why do commentators insist the IPL/T20 is bad for "pure" wicket-keepers. Given a reduced role for batsmen down the order, surely a good keeper is more, not less important?
  • Violent heaves across the line and an endless stream of boundaries don't seem to be that effective. The highest scorers in the IPL are classical stylists, and (as a forthcoming post will show) wickets do matter.

So many questions. Perhaps I am too much of a traditionalist for T20. I guess I hope that, like a teenage girl who thinks looking like a tramp is the best way to show off her emerging body, T20 might mature into something that dresses well.

Cricket - Articles 20th April, 2010 16:15:09   [#] [6 comments] 

Seeing pink and red.
Russell Degnan

The idea that will save test cricket, night cricket in whites, continues to infuriate administrators. Experiments to find a visible ball that won't fade with repeated misuse have tossed up a fluoro-pink ball that seems to bring a night test that little bit closer. This is no bad thing, and I have no particular problem with either concept. But I do wonder why, after almost two decades of trying the only approach that has been attempted is to change the colour of the ball.

One day cricket with a white ball has largely succeeded of course, but it hasn't been without difficulties. A ball is subject to some horrible treatment during a cricket match, scuffed against an abrasive rock hard surface more than five hundred times, repeatedly bashed with a piece of wood, rolled across dew covered green grass, and pounded into concrete and metal stands. Is it any wonder that the leather softens and discolours to a dull grey? The white ball has been problematic both because it turns a dull grey and difficult to see colour, and because, in order to prevent that, the lacquer has generally been thicker and more conducive to swing.

A red ball is subject to equally trying circumstances, but the red ball will only turn from a bright cherry red to a dull cherry red as it is beaten into submission. The problem with the red ball has been not its deterioration, but its lack of visibility at night. But it is worth noting the reasons why a red ball is invisible at night, and perhaps too, whether there might be a simpler technical solution than trying to create a coloured ball that acts like a ball should, without losing its colour and visibility under difficult conditions.

A simple discussion of light suffices to show why the red ball has a problem. At all cricket grounds, the light comes from above. It is neither as bright as the sun, providing substantially less ambient reflection, nor does it provide a blue background to silhouette the ball against. Moreover, the reflection that does occur, comes from reflections off green grass playing area, and is therefore mostly composed of green light. While the top of the ball is exceptionally well lit, making ground fielding no problem, the dark under-side of the ball is practically black.

A pink ball suffers from a similar problem. Like the red ball, most of the light reflecting from it is green, but the pink is such a reflective surface, that the light is sufficient to (hopefully) show a dull pink against the dark night sky. Even so, there are claims that the pink is insufficiently bright to be played with.

I wonder then, if there is an alternative. If the problem is light on the underside of the ball, then lighting the underside of a normal red ball, might be sufficient to make it visible - potentially, even more visible than a pink or white ball.

For the spectators and players sake, merely pointing lights into the sky is a bad idea. But the purpose here is not to light everything, only the ball, and only with enough ambient red light to make it visible. Red-filtered lights, shone into long reflective panels should be sufficient to light the bottom of the ball while, for spectators, reducing glare from across the ground to a minimum, and the glare for players to none (unless they are facing away from the pitch).

Would this solve the problem? Perhaps, it depends how expensive it is to install a temporary supplementary lighting system at each ground; how effective the reflected lighting is at making the ball visible; and whether the reflective patterns detract from the viewing experience of spectators. But it is worth considering, given that several decades of research have failed to produce a ball that will remain visible for 100 plus overs, and still plays as a ball should. Perhaps, the pink ball will succeed. Or perhaps not.

Cricket - Articles 13th April, 2010 21:46:52   [#] [2 comments] 

Ratings - 8th April 2010
Russell Degnan

The 2009/10 summer comes to a belated close, and the ratings will break for a month of T20 games. The T20 ratings will reappear for the duration of the world cup.

Recently completed matches

I-Shield MatchNamibiavBermuda
Pre-rating364.81170.84
Form-28.91-29.47
Expected MarginNamibia by 147 runs
Actual MarginNamibia by an innings and 185 runs
Post-rating383.95143.18

After 84.5 overs of their first innings, Bermuda lost their tenth wicket for 214 runs. After 84.5 overs of their first innings, Namibia lost their first wicket for 374 runs. The partnership between van Schoor and Steenkamp even more remarkable given they are 19 and 21 respectively. Safely in front, Namibia put the foot down, piling on 209 in the next 30 overs before rolling Bermuda for 184 in their second innings. Given Namibia were finalists in the I-Cup last year, this result should be no surprise. But the ease of it must worry the Bermudans who lack class players, except the ageing Hemp. Namibia will face a sterner test against Uganda, needing first innings points in a draw, or a win, to guarantee a spot in the final.


Rankings at 8th April 2010
1.Australia1220.63
2.India1209.46
3.South Africa1187.88
4.England1129.25
5.Sri Lanka1103.96
6.Pakistan1073.90
7.West Indies926.27
8.New Zealand917.90
9.Bangladesh628.23
10.Zimbabwe556.79

11.Ireland554.16
12.Scotland470.23
13.Namibia383.95
14.Afghanistan359.64
15.Kenya353.20
16.U.S.A.296.99
17.Uganda280.54
18.Netherlands220.31
19.Nepal179.54
20.Canada177.74
21.U.A.E.155.26
22.Hong Kong147.15
23.Bermuda143.18
24.Cayman Is134.24
25.Malaysia108.49

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 13th April, 2010 18:55:19   [#] [0 comments] 

Ratings - 1st April 2010
Russell Degnan

Recently completed matches

2nd TestNew ZealandvAustralia
Pre-rating927.691216.63
Form-22.65+6.01
Expected MarginAustralia by 94 runs
Actual MarginAustralia by 176 runs
Post-rating917.901220.63

A microcosm of Australia's summer. You'd think another collapse for less than 250 would be worrying the selectors, but it is obvious that the selectors are only interested in change following losses, or discarding those amongst the "playing group" that don't look the part, regardless of performance. Losses were in short supply all summer though. While Australia was inconsistently getting out for low scores, the three mediocre sides played were inconsistently achieving respectable totals. Over two innings, Australia always did enough to win, but better teams would punish them. Whether England are a better team, in Australia, in November, remains to be seen.

For New Zealand, Australia's bookend was their highlight, which is sad, given the inherent meaningless of the tie, and lack of interest shown from this side of the Tasman. They end the summer on a low, their rating continuing to go backwards, now ranked eighth again, and recently lost their two best bowlers. They need, as always, batsmen who can construct an innings. Some of the young players show potential, but they are a long way from being competitive with the top four.


Forthcoming matches

I-Shield MatchNamibiavBermuda
Pre-rating364.81170.84
Form-28.91-29.47
Expected MarginNamibia by 147 runs

An important game in a minor competition. The loser is almost certain to miss the final, the winner will need to beat one of Uganda or the U.A.E. in their remaining game. Namibia put up much the better performance in their game, taking first innings points against a reasonable U.A.E. side, whereas Bermuda collapsed twice for less than 150. While that, and the ratings would point to the home side winning comfortably, associate games are notoriously unpredictable, and noone has played enough games to make reliable predictions. With four days of thunderstorms predicted as well, perhaps a draw is the most likely outcome.


Rankings at 1st April 2010
1.Australia1220.63
2.India1209.46
3.South Africa1187.88
4.England1129.25
5.Sri Lanka1103.96
6.Pakistan1073.90
7.West Indies926.27
8.New Zealand917.90
9.Bangladesh628.23
10.Zimbabwe556.79

11.Ireland554.16
12.Scotland470.23
13.Namibia364.81
14.Afghanistan359.64
15.Kenya353.20
16.U.S.A.296.99
17.Uganda280.54
18.Netherlands220.31
19.Nepal179.54
20.Canada177.74
21.Bermuda170.84
22.U.A.E.155.26
23.Hong Kong147.15
24.Cayman Is134.24
25.Malaysia108.49

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 1st April, 2010 11:42:02   [#] [0 comments]