By and large, the absence of tv coverage means I am completely ignoring the IPL this year, but a piece by Suresh Menon caught my eye, and is worth commenting on. Unlike most woe-betid-test-cricket pieces, Menon actually works through the mechanism for IPL's increasing influence. The problem is that mechanism, once laid out, is rather underwhelming as a force for change. At least if anyone in influence wanted to prevent that change.

The essential argument runs as follows: players earn more in the IPL and other T20 leagues; if push came to shove cricket boards will lose a legal battle over where players can play; financially weak cricket boards (such as the West Indies or Pakistan) will no longer able to pay market rates for their players' services; players aspire to greater financial rewards over playing test cricket. Therefore, the preservation of test cricket requires greater financial rewards in test cricket.

There are a number of problems with the argument though, starting, most importantly, with the conclusion. Increasing the financial rewards for test cricket to the same level as T20 leagues would require a complete overhaul of cricket as we know it. Boards, small boards, get their money from tours; redistribution occurs via the ICC via major event money. But even with a substantial subsidy, the smaller test boards - the associates are a whole different problem, and an increasingly urgent one - cannot match the salaries of T20 leagues. Paying Gayle, Afridi and so on to pay tests means not only matching the salary of T20 international players, but massive redistribution of tv rights deals currently captured by the host nation. That probably should happen, at least at some level, most likely through the expansion of ICC tournaments, but it isn't going to happen soon, or to a sufficient degree. If test cricket actually depended on equality of incomes, then it would really be doomed. Fortunately it doesn't.

There are two other fundamental problems with the argument being put forward that makes it flawed. The first is this:

"The odd player might still talk about batting (or bowling) for the country and the joys of patriotism, but what really drives the professional sportsman seems to be money, and lots of it for a short period of work."

I've watched a lot of professional sportsmen discuss what motivates them across a wide variety of sports, many very well paid. To the extent that money is a motivating factor it is two-fold: as professional sportsmen, they only have a small window to take advantage of their talent; but as importantly, players are driven by status, they want to be paid what they believe they are worth, relative to other players.

If there was a relatively free market for labour, players would get paid roughly what they are worth by whoever employed them. The IPL is far from a free market, given how the rules favour the acquisition of second rate Indian talent over a broader pool of internationals, but it does allow players to pursue the dual status markers of professional sportsmen. One of those is the biggest contract. The other, just as important, is star status and trophies against the world's elite.

As I've discussed before, test cricket fails badly in this respect. Even were the players in question not being offered contracts ten or even a hundred times bigger for playing T20, the non-monetary rewards for playing test cricket for the West Indies or Pakistan are pathetic. A two-test tour against a major side resting their best players in the tail-end (or start) of a season watched by sparse crowds compares poorly to the IPL no matter what you think of T20.

To reiterate. Players are driven by status, money is only one aspect of status. The others are the importance and context of a competition, the quality of the opposition, and the historical relevance of the contest. Test cricket is failing most of the world's players on those factors, and the focus on money as if the market for labour was the only determining factor in a player's choice is hiding some really important non-market issues of governance and competition.

The second fundamental flaw in the argument rests on the nature of opportunity. Once again, in a free market, players would have a wide choice of possible playing destinations, and possible employers, with various leagues competing for their services. But that is not the case. Every T20 league is organised by an ICC affiliated board; the only T20 league that wasn't, the ICL, was ruthlessly out-competed. Almost every test series is part of the future tours program, which the boards all agreed to. Players have managed to escape the employment monopoly of their own cricket board, but they remain tied to sanctioned competitions.

The starting premise, that domestic T20 and test cricket are necessarily in competition is therefore also false. They are only in competition because the boards, on their own initiative and through their representations on the ICC, allow the two formats to compete. If a window for playing each format was enacted, then players would only be able to choose no cricket at all, over test cricket; and vice versa.

To construct an argument that test cricketers need better pay in order for the longer form to "compete" is a failure of scheduling. Other sports do not offer their stars a choice between international and domestic duties. Domestic competitions - which pay the bulk of their wages - are suspended for international competition. Test (and first class) cricket doesn't need better pay, or even necessarily a better income stream. What they need is space to operate without market competition; the art-house film role to T20 blockbuster. Because, players almost certainly do want the plaudits and status of test cricket success; and it is entirely a failure of administration to force them to choose between that financial security.

Cricket - Articles 29th April, 2012 00:51:53   [#] [2 comments] 

2nd Test	Sri Lanka	v	England
Pre-rating	1037.91		1294.93
Form	+7.94		-21.53
Expected Margin	England by 79 runs
Actual Margin	England by 8 wickets
Post-rating	1033.23		1299.01

It stood to reason that England would eventually win a game from a decent position, and that their batting would eventually produce enough runs to support their bowling. They did so here largely through the efforts of Pietersen, who played with an elan he'd not shown in some time. Jayawardene and Herath's good form continued, taking 7 wickets and producing 169 runs respectively for the match, but they were poorly supported, with no other batsman scoring over 60 and the expensive Dilshan the only bowler taking more than one wicket.

For England, Swann took 10, and Anderson continued his brilliant support bowling. At the top of the order, Strauss scored some runs, but not a lot of runs, prelonging questions over his form and future in the side. The advantage of short series for batsmen is that they are never long enough to give a convincing case for being dropped.

There has been much discussion of the short "series", but to be honest I can't say I mind a two-test event. Cricket has too many trophies, and the mutual bilateral series is a primitive way to schedule a sport. Put in a proper context a two test, three week series is probably preferable to a five week, three test one. This was an interesting enough series albeit one without any memorable games. Another game like the ones just had wouldn't do much to improve that state of affairs.

I-Cup Match	Afghanistan	v	Netherlands
Pre-rating	514.53		202.55
Form	+62.62		-13.43
Expected Margin	Afghanistan by 156 runs
Actual Margin	Afghanistan by 3 wickets
Post-rating	510.09		208.86

Another low scoring and tense I-Cup game, won at the death by Afghanistan's 18-year-old wicket-keeper on debut, Afsar Zazai, whose 84 not out was the highest score of the match (he also took 6 catches). The Netherlands didn't come away empty handed, somehow converting the 133 they made on day one into a 4 run first innings lead on the back of Bukhari's 6/43. Nawroz Mangal the last batsman to fall for 67, supported, for lack of a better word, by 9 single figure scores.

From 6/111 chasing 233 Afghanistan really ought to have lost; their lack of form in I-up games ought to be worrying. They are a team that knows how to win though, and the retain second on the table, almost half-way through the competition. The Netherlands first innings points mean they are tied for fourth, with a home game against the UAE and games against Namibia and Canada, they are well placed to make a run at the final.

I-Cup Match	Namibia	v	Canada
Pre-rating	407.53		154.88
Form	+15.66		-26.72
Expected Margin	Namibia by 176 runs
Actual Margin	Namibia by 8 wickets
Post-rating	396.94		165.88

A thoroughly professional performance from Namibia, defeating a Canadian side still without a point after three games. Canada's biggest problem is a top-3 that, while talented, has an average age of 19, nd a propensity for daft strokes. They did well to make 274 in the first innings, but couldn't wear down Namibia's impossily deep batting lineup and were passed with 4 wickets in hand. Burger making 135 and van Schoor continuing his WT20Q form with 71. Viljoen dominated the second innings, taking 7/61, with only Siddiqi providing resistance (his 71 following his 87 in the first innings). The 119 run chase was dispensed with in short order with Steenkamp making 60 at a run a ball. Namibia join the glut of teams on 23 points. Canada, probably just need patience; provided they don't drop out of the top 8 associate sides their youth will flower, eventually.

1st Test	West Indies	v	Australia
Pre-rating	923.80		1177.62
Form	-1.82		+46.80
Expected Margin	Australia by 77 runs
Actual Margin	Australia by 3 wickets
Post-rating	924.21		1177.29

A game that looked more exciting than it was, mostly because Sammy, and perhaps the West Indies generally, are so accustomed to losing they fail to see when an alternative is on offer. They fought well until the last day, led by Chanderpaul's 103 and 11 scores in double figures on the first two days, they entered the fourth day in a position to press the advantage. Australia, still one run short of the follow-on with Hussey, Wade on debut and a questionable tail to follow. By day's end they'd thrown it away, the questionable tail adding 121 undefeated runs for the last two wickets, then ripping out 4/17 - mostly to Hilfenhaus.

The game now Australia's to win, they needless to say, kept the pressure on. A chase of 192 was never going to be straight-forward; the light threatened to reduce the chase to 40-50 overs, the pitch was turning, an in Bishoo and Deonarine, the West Indies had enough bowling to exploit it. Unfortunately they seemed more content to waste time, plug singles and let the score meander along. After a slow start, a cameo 57 (57) from Watson set up a straight-forward final hour. Australia did their best to fail, losing a bereft Cowan, Ponting and Clarke in short order. Hussey is a master of this type of chase though, and interspersed aggressive running with sixes launched onto the roof of the grand-stand to ensure the win.

Hussey's wicketdid turn out to be significant in one way though. It tipped Australia from beating the margin to losing, preventing them from over-taking South Africa into second spot. They probably oughtn't be second, given how many points they gained beating up a poor India. Hopefully the West Indies have gained the confidence from their efforts to actually push for a victory in the remaining games.

Rankings at 1st April 2012
1.	England	1299.01
2.	South Africa	1181.34
3.	Australia	1177.29
4.	Pakistan	1128.35
5.	Sri Lanka	1033.23
6.	India	1023.29
7.	West Indies	924.21
8.	New Zealand	887.90
9.	Bangladesh	601.34
10.	Zimbabwe	543.69
11.	Ireland	555.48
12.	Afghanistan	510.09
13.	Scotland	444.87
14.	Namibia	396.94
15.	Kenya	317.93
16.	U.S.A.	296.99
17.	Uganda	268.44
18.	U.A.E.	212.22
19.	Netherlands	208.86
20.	Nepal	196.51
21.	Canada	165.88
22.	Hong Kong	148.65
23.	Cayman Is	134.24
24.	Malaysia	123.90
25.	Bermuda	105.40

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 16th April, 2012 00:52:45   [#] [0 comments] 

2nd Test	New Zealand	v	South Africa
Pre-rating	885.10		1183.70
Form	-1.11		+6.47
Expected Margin	South Africa by 99 runs
Actual Margin	Match drawn
Post-rating	887.90		1181.34
Series rating	965.99		1102.35

As in the previous game, a couple of good sessions were the difference between the sides, but rain had the final say. Over three rain-effected days A double century stand between Peterson (156) and Duminy (103) propelled South Africa to 474 from which only one side could win. Gillespie was the main wicket-taker ending the series with 22 wickets at 22.8. The remainder of the match consisted primarily of squandered opportunities for South Africa and a fighting rear-guard from New Zealand. The follow-on was avoided with Martin at the crease; Philander again taking 6 wickets to end with 21 wickets at 15.5. South Africa rightly scored quickly to give themselves a chance of victory, but might have declared sooner still, given Taylor was out with a broken arm.

In any case, they had their chances to take nine wickets, bowling superbly in partnerships, and catching quite poorly, such that only Morkel 6/23 (16.4) actually took wickets. The chase was never on, but Williamson showed his class and temperament, making 102 not out to see New Zealand to a draw - a 1-0 loss they'd probably be pleased with, given they were largely outplayed. South Africa's inability to close out games continues to haunt them, and is reflected in a middling ranking that could be much higher. They'll need to take those chances to succeed in England.

1st Test	Sri Lanka	v	England
Pre-rating	1030.56		1304.23
Form	-9.02		-11.70
Expected Margin	England by 87 runs
Actual Margin	Sri Lanka 75 runs
Post-rating	1037.91		1294.93

England stormed to number last year, not through outstanding brilliance, but through outstanding consistency; their bowlers gave away no loose boundaries, no no-balls, no easy runs; their fieldsmen caught their chances; their batsmen played few loose shots and gave no easy wickets. It was excellent cricket, and they have stopped playing it. By rights, they ought to have won here; they gave away an astonishing 268 runs to the last four wickets. Quite a bit of that to Jayawardene, whose 180 was the decisive knock, but it was far from chanceless. The dropped catches, the no-ball dismissal of Prasanna Jayawardene and the needless and soft dismissals to pre-meditated sweeps and attempts to loft the ball more than made up the eventual deficit.

As against Pakistan, it is their playing of spin that is the problem. Herath 12/171 and Randiv 6/100 are neither very dangerous nor particularly accurate, but they extracted turn. The English batsmen, accustomed to smothering the spin with neither guile nor skill, have now become so paranoid about LBW dismissals that they've forgotten to simply defend when in danger. Bell, in the first innings, and Trott, in the second, demonstrated that both runs and survival were possible. The English have the superior pace attack and probably the superior spin attack; but they lost to a Sri Lankan side that in the fundamentals played better cricket; exactly the same cricket England were not long ago so good at.

Forthcoming Series

I-Cup Match	Afghanistan	v	Netherlands
Pre-rating	514.53		202.55
Form	+62.62		-13.43
Expected Margin	Afghanistan by 156 runs

As usual with I-Cup games, treat the ratings with a certain scepticism. Netherlands have strangely underperformed in this competition; regularly missing players doesn't help, and this game is no different on that score. Afghanistan are not immune to that problem either though, suffering several injuries in the recent WT20 qualifiers, although except for Hamid Hassan the rest seem to have recovered. Nevertheless, they are probably more closely matched than in recent games. Afghanistan came out on top in their WT20Q meeting, but the Netherlands revenged that with a thrashing in the first ODI match, the second being a closer victory to the Asian side. Afghanistan ought to prevail; their bowling resources remain deep which tells in four day games, but by less than the rankings suggest.

I-Cup Match	Namibia	v	Canada
Pre-rating	407.53		154.88
Form	+15.66		-26.72
Expected Margin	Namibia by 176 runs

A bottom of the table clash, both starting with two difficult fixtures. Canada were deeply uncompetitive in their first two games, struggled through the WT20 qualifiers, and are suffering as they try to rebuild their young squad. Namibia, who have a young squad, and a talented one, will be disappointed with their collapses when it mattered in Dubai, and looking to make amends at home. The ratings, in this case, seem fairly accurate, and it will be a surprise if Canada can match the Namibian totals, or bowl them out for a decent score. If they can force a draw, that would be something, but expect Namibia to win relatively comfortably.

3 Tests	West Indies	v	Australia
Pre-rating	923.80		1177.62
Form	-1.82		+46.80
Expected Margin	Australia by 77 runs

Australia's tours to the West Indies are a good guide to the changes in international cricket; once a brutal four test examination, it was first shifted to accomodate the World Cup, shortened, and now secondary to the IPL for many potential participants. Australia had an up and down summer at home; the domination of India tempered by a split series with New Zealand. Their form in the T20 and ODIs are probably reflective of very little, given the changing squads; as for that matter is the West Indies respectable efforts.

Likewise, the West Indies test form over the past year is difficult to gauge. They have played only India and Bangladesh in that period, and only a split series against enigmatic Pakistan and Sri Lanka in a rain-damaged series in the year before that. They seem to be playing better than in the past, particularly at home. Certainly they shouldn't be written off; their batting is potentially brilliant, but prone to daft dismissals; their bowling seems unthreatening, but finds ways to get wickets - particularly Sammy. Australia's fast bowling - injuries notwithstanding - ought to be the decisive factor, but a West Indies victory is not as unlikely as the recent past.

Rankings at 1st April 2012
1.	England	1294.93
2.	South Africa	1181.34
3.	Australia	1177.62
4.	Pakistan	1128.35
5.	Sri Lanka	1037.91
6.	India	1023.29
7.	West Indies	923.80
8.	New Zealand	887.90
9.	Bangladesh	601.34
10.	Zimbabwe	543.69
11.	Ireland	555.48
12.	Afghanistan	514.53
13.	Scotland	444.87
14.	Namibia	407.53
15.	Kenya	317.93
16.	U.S.A.	296.99
17.	Uganda	268.44
18.	U.A.E.	212.22
19.	Netherlands	202.55
20.	Nepal	196.51
21.	Canada	154.58
22.	Hong Kong	148.65
23.	Cayman Is	134.24
24.	Malaysia	123.90
25.	Bermuda	105.40

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 2nd April, 2012 09:00:18   [#] [2 comments]