![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Football teams park the team bus in front of goal to achieve a draw; the West Indies must have parked the roller on the pitch last week to get this result. A team more assertive than South Africa might have chanced their arm at 3/398 at lunch on the second day, but they didn't, and the only team with the ability to force a result on this pitch left it to crawl to its miserable end. The West Indies did begin their innings positively enough, but Bravo and Chanderpaul were content to play for a draw, as only 117 were scored in 67 overs following Nash's dismissal. If this test was played as part of a test championship we'd debate the consequences of the draw with great intensity. But in the midst of a forgettable and pointless tour of the Carribean this a test best soon forgotten.
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 23rd June, 2010 15:58:37 [#] [0 comments]
World Cup Group Qualification
|
I-Cup Match | Netherlands | v | Scotland |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 219.46 | 464.97 | |
Form | -30.22 | +46.17 | |
Expected Margin | Scotland by 73 runs | ||
Actual Margin | Scotland by 4 wickets | ||
Post-rating | 210.64 | 477.92 |
What looked like a comprehensive win for Scotland was almost one of the great turn-arounds in cricket history. Chasing just 75 in the fourth innings, Jonkman ripped out 5 wickets to have them teetering at 6/18. McCallum and Haq successfully counter-attacked to get a deserved win, but the Netherlands could reflect on what might have been if they'd not suffered four reckless run-outs, and scored even another 100 runs. While the loss ends the Netherlands chances in this competition, for Scotland the win catapults them to the top of the standings, with games against their likely finals opponents (should they make it) in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe to come. They'll be perturbed by the weakness in the top order, and an over-dependence on the all-round efforts of Berrington, Parker and Haq, but with their stock continually rising, they might take over as the most highly ranked associate by season-end.
1st Test | West Indies | v | South Africa |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 927.04 | 1187.58 | |
Form | -2.54 | -3.50 | |
Expected Margin | South Africa by 80 runs | ||
Actual Margin | South Africa by 163 runs | ||
Post-rating | 921.87 | 1191.65 |
The beauty of the internet is that I had my choice of games between technically poor sides being outclassed by a ruthlessly efficient opponent. West Indies actually had the best of this game early on, playing tight, attacking cricket to have South Africa 5/107 after 47.5 overs. But from then South Africa dominated, first grinding out a comparatively large total, then inducing two rapid collapses: first Morkel ripping out Nash, Dowlin and Gayle to have them 3/12, then Steyn causing a collapse of 6 for 4 in just over 4 overs to effectively kill the game.
As usual, South Africa showed a remarkable lack of urgency in their second innings, setting a moderate, not comprehensive, target but with Steyn and Morkel in such compelling form, they were never going to lose. The West Indies managed to turn around their first test performance in Australia in December, but in the absence of a number of first-choice players, it is hard to see how their current batting or bowling lineup can contribute enough to win. Only close losses or better can keep them above New Zealand in the next couple of games.
Rankings at 17th June 2010 | ||
---|---|---|
1. | Australia | 1220.38 |
2. | India | 1209.48 |
3. | South Africa | 1191.65 |
4. | England | 1125.95 |
5. | Sri Lanka | 1103.96 |
6. | Pakistan | 1073.88 |
7. | West Indies | 921.87 |
8. | New Zealand | 917.91 |
9. | Bangladesh | 638.24 |
10. | Zimbabwe | 556.79 |
11. | Ireland | 547.06 |
12. | Scotland | 477.92 |
13. | Namibia | 378.09 |
14. | Afghanistan | 362.06 |
15. | Kenya | 351.46 |
16. | U.S.A. | 296.99 |
17. | Uganda | 280.48 |
18. | Netherlands | 210.64 |
19. | Nepal | 196.51 |
20. | Canada | 177.28 |
21. | U.A.E. | 161.47 |
22. | Hong Kong | 148.65 |
23. | Bermuda | 138.61 |
24. | Cayman Is | 134.24 |
25. | Malaysia | 123.90 |
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 17th June, 2010 19:17:14 [#] [0 comments]
Predictably, the immediate coverage of Australia's hammering by Germany has been an over-reaction to a shoddy loss. And, admittedly, it couldn't really have gone much worse. The worst bit was that we were lazy and disorganised in defence, and, needless to say, Germany have a knack for cracking weak defences. The second worst bit was losing Cahill to a rash but not red-card offence. The third worst bit was shipping four goals, which ends any hope of sneaking through on goal difference. The loss itself wasn't that important, we always expected to lose, but must continue to hope that Germany keep on winning, to even out the competition for second-place.
It is the defence Australia has to worry about. The midfield was nowhere to be seen, leaving the Germans free to time simple balls in behind the defence for the cut-back. The first and fourth goals were classic examples of this problem, with noone picking up the run, nor more crucially marking the players joining from midfield. Frankly, given how frequently the Germans got free inside our penalty area, we were lucky not to let in more.
Tactically, Australia is ill-suited to play on the counter-attack, being both likely to concede goals regardless of the formation and unable, for lack of technical proficiency, creativity and pace to score on either the break or via the leading forward. Nevertheless, after five minutes it still appeared to be a sensible option, as Australia started well. You cannot win on the counter if you concede easily, and unfortunately, I have yet to see an Australian side that doesn't do that. Klose's goal being yet another demonstration of Schwarzer's frustrating inability to command the box and let in unnecessary goals, even if he saves several others.
That all said, Verbeek can be expected to turn out a different lineup for the next two games, against sides Australia are not only capable of defeating, but now have to defeat, which should force his hand. The evidence against Germany suggests Australia remain a team whose best, if not only, chance of scoring comes from the wings, and that means getting players forward.
Football 14th June, 2010 14:33:09 [#] [5 comments]
Recently completed matches
2nd Test | England | v | Bangladesh |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 1125.95 | 640.26 | |
Form | +0.57 | +21.86 | |
Expected Margin | England by 301 runs | ||
Actual Margin | England by 8 wickets | ||
Post-rating | 1127.08 | 638.24 |
On several levels, Old Trafford was a miserable failure for Bangladesh, they lost 10 wickets in just over a session twice. Once is okay, as several teams showed last year: England (10/91 in 29.5 overs - 4th test), Australia (10/87 in 29.5 overs - 5th test), but if you do it twice, like say, the West Indies (10/106 in 23.4 overs - 1st Test and 123 in 31.5 overs - 2nd Test) then you don't deserve to play test cricket. Not that the collapse mattered on that front. It is a peculiarly English thing to treat teams with condescension until they've beaten them at home - after which they must be good. But trawl through those dates, and they seem instantly familiar: Australia 1882, South Africa 1935, West Indies 1950, Pakistan 1954, India 1971, New Zealand 1983, Sri Lanka 1998. When Bangladesh next tour, if they ever next tour, then they can add their names to that list.
Other failures were more important: having found their way into a favourable position, they played really badly, when they need to learn to hang in and fight; they just missed their expected margin again, which indicates that their improvement is stalling, and their rating is about right; and by rushing off to the Asia Cup, they've passed up a valuable opportunity to tour the counties (and associates) to learn something about batting and bowling in difficult conditions.
Nevertheless, it wasn't all bad, and their overall performance was similar to how New Zealand and the West Indies performed in the previous three May tours:
West Indies 2007 P:4 W:0 D:1 L:3 Bat:28.60 Bowl:49.07 Ratio:0.582
New Zealand 2008 P:3 W:0 D:1 L:2 Bat:25.85 Bowl:34.67 Ratio:0.746
West Indies 2009 P:2 W:0 D:0 L:2 Bat:22.35 Bowl:61.12 Ratio:0.366
Bangladesh 2010 P:2 W:0 D:0 L:2 Bat:25.07 Bowl:49.40 Ratio:0.507
For England, this was a learning opportunity for certain players. Bresnan, though injured, seems to have been written off for his bowling at Lord's. Morgan clearly needs work and Prior was criticised while Finn and Shahzad seem to have great potential. How much you can learn from so few performances against such an ordinary side.
Forthcoming matches
I-Cup Match | Netherlands | v | Scotland |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 219.46 | 464.97 | |
Form | -30.22 | +46.17 | |
Expected Margin | Scotland by 73 runs |
The inter-continental cup restarts with a vital game for both sides. The Dutch must win to have any chance of making the final, while Scotland must keep winning to stay ahead of Zimbabwe, and/or over-take Afghanistan. Without the county players, tied up in county games, Scotland probably have a slight edge, though not near as large as the ratings suggest. Plus, being the Netherlands, it will probably rain anyway.
3 Tests | West Indies | v | South Africa |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 927.04 | 1187.58 | |
Form | -2.54 | -3.50 | |
Expected Margin | South Africa by 80 runs |
A big test for the West Indies, who are rated to win one game, but have been erratic in the past year, with some good performances in Australia making up for a little of the rubbish they played in England. South Africa have recently lacked the edge that took them above Australia 18 months ago, and seem overly dependent on Steyn for inspiration. If the pitches are anything like the roads served up to England then the most interesting question might be whether Amla can break the record for most runs in a calendar year. A series being anticipated more in trepidation than anticipation, but worth watching regardless.
Rankings at 9th June 2010 | ||
---|---|---|
1. | Australia | 1220.38 |
2. | India | 1209.48 |
3. | South Africa | 1187.58 |
4. | England | 1125.95 |
5. | Sri Lanka | 1103.96 |
6. | Pakistan | 1073.88 |
7. | West Indies | 927.04 |
8. | New Zealand | 917.91 |
9. | Bangladesh | 638.24 |
10. | Zimbabwe | 556.79 |
11. | Ireland | 547.06 |
12. | Scotland | 464.97 |
13. | Namibia | 378.09 |
14. | Afghanistan | 362.06 |
15. | Kenya | 351.46 |
16. | U.S.A. | 296.99 |
17. | Uganda | 280.48 |
18. | Netherlands | 219.46 |
19. | Nepal | 196.51 |
20. | Canada | 177.28 |
21. | U.A.E. | 161.47 |
22. | Hong Kong | 148.65 |
23. | Bermuda | 138.61 |
24. | Cayman Is | 134.24 |
25. | Malaysia | 123.90 |
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 10th June, 2010 19:42:00 [#] [0 comments]
While I've made some general comments before about how the ratings are calculate, until now, there has not been a definitive description. I first started compiling them, based on the same principles as the Elo Ratings used for chess (and football) 10 years ago.
The basic Elo approach requires that each match has an expectation. If a team beats that expectation, it receives points from the other team. If it fails to beat that expectation, it gives points to the other team. Each match is therefore dependent on the initial ratings, and every match in test history is needed to get the exact figure. (Reversing the result of the first ever test match raised England's current rating by 0.04, but that might be a rounding error).
A number of modifications to the basic formula have been added since, mostly to counter difficulties related to the comparative paucity of test matches played. By and large, how you calculate a rating usually doesn't matter much. But there are some subtle effects on the margin that I've tried to iron out, to balance out the problem of making a rating responsive to changes in true ability, but not erratic to individual results.
The rating itself is only a relative measure, useful to make comparisons between teams but a meaningless number. To make historical comparisons easier (but never completely valid) the test teams have always added up to 1000 (give or take). Each additional test side was given the rating of the current worst side, and the other ratings adjusted back to the 100 average. This isn't the best way - the best way is to set a rating rating that minimizes the rating adjustments in the following couple of years - this is what was done for the T20 ratings. But comparative analysis was deemed more important for the test ratings.
Each match is represented by a row in an excel table. The easiest way to describe the calculation is to go through one, so I'll use the last one:
England vs Bangladesh at Lord's, 2010.
Ratings
The ratings are looked up, and the difference calculated. A home team is given a 100 point bonus. The number is nice and round, but deceptively accurate. In T20 cricket, the home bonus is 20 points.
Home Team | ENG | |
Rating(H) | 1128.82 | Lookup(Home Team) |
Away Team | BAN | |
Rating(A) | 629.33 | Lookup(Away Team) |
Diff | 499.49 | Rating(H)-Rating(A) |
Neutral | h | (h/n) |
Home Bonus | 100 | Neutral is h => 100 n => 0 |
DiffWHome | 599.49 | Diff + Home Bonus |
Expected Margin
An expected margin is calculated from the ratings difference. This is complicated slightly by draws, which are a margin of 0. To compensate, the calculated expected run margin is slightly lower than what would be expected if there was a guaranteed result.
Pt to Margin | 0.5 | Constant |
Exp Margin | 300 | Pt to Margin x DiffWHome |
Margin Difference
An innings (the 4th) is considered to be worth 250 runs. This is slightly lower than the average for a 4th innings of 270 runs since WW2, but (as always) close enough. Adjusting any one constant seems to make very little difference to the final ratings. All games shift, a little. The calculated margin is therefore runs, plus 250 for an innings victory, or the number of wickets remaining, divided by 11. This should be scaled, really, but the spreadsheet is slow enogh already.
Result | h | (h/a/d/t) |
Runs Margin | 0 | |
Wick Margin | 8 | |
Inn Margin | 0 | (1/0) |
Margin Value | 250 | Constant |
Home Margin | 182 | (Inn Margin + Wick Margin / 11) x Margin Value + Runs Margin |
Diff Margin | -118 | Exp Margin - Home Margin |
Game Weight
Matches are weighted by importance. Matches increase in importance the longer a series is. Matches where the series has been decided (dead rubbers) ae worth half a live rubber.
Series Length | 2 | |
Live Game | a | (d/a) |
Game Weight (T) | 21.21 | sqrt(Series Length) x 15 x (Live Game d => 0.5, a => 1) |
Rating Change
The calculated points transfer is given by the game weight, multiplied by the difference between the margin and the expected margin (divided by one innings, but for no real reason). If a team has won the game, but is still losing points, the size of the transfer is reduced by 1/6th, and vice versa. Similarly, draws, which often owe a lot to luck, are discounted by half.
Base Change | -10.01 | Game Weight (T) x Diff Margin / Margin Value |
Mod Change | -8.34 | Base Change x (Result is d => 0.5 Point gainer is w => 1 l => 5/6 ) |
The transfer is uneven, to account for differences in the perceived accuracy of the ratings. Historically, this fixed a severe problem with South African ratings, when they were only playing a couple of tests per year. Each team has a game weight - effectively a rolling average of the number of games played over two years. It is calculated by adding one for each test played, and by halving the weight at the beginning of the English season. A team pushes the change in proportion to the number of games they have played.
Game Weight (H) | 12.34 | Lookup(Home Team) |
Game Weight (A) | 6.46 | Lookup(Away Team) |
Total Weight | 18.80 | Game Weight (H + A) |
PreChange(H) | -5.73 | ModChange x Game Weight (A) / Total Weight |
PreChange(A) | 10.94 | ModChange x Game Weight (H) / Total Weight |
Team Rating Change
A team is no longer docked the entire preliminary ratings change. To allow the ratings to be more sensitive to changes in form, without making them erratic to off games (the West Indies massive loss to Pakistan in the late-80s stands out here), only half of the ratings change is added immediately. The other half, is added to a protected ratings table - often referred to as form, which it effectively measures.
If a team has a positive form, and receives points, they receive a quarter of their current form, in addition to half the rating change, and vice versa. Otherwise they receive only the ratings change. The protected rating is declined by 25% each game, plus half the preliminary rating change.
Pt Decline | 0.25 | |
Protected(H) | 0.57 | Lookup(Home Team) |
ProtChange(H) | 0 | sign(PreChange(H)) is sign(Protected(H)) => Pt Decline x Protected(H) else 0 |
RatChange(H) | -2.87 | ProtChange(H) + PreChange(H)/2 |
Protected(A) | 21.86 | Lookup(Away Team) |
ProtChange(A) | 5.46 | sign(PreChange(A)) is sign(Protected(A)) => Pt Decline x Protected(A) else 0 |
RatChange(A) | 10.94 | ProtChange(A) + PreChange(A)/2 |
The ratings are updated when I get to it, but if I'm watching, normally immediately. The post will normally coincide with a gap without any ongoing games, if one exists.
Cricket - Ratings 8th June, 2010 01:42:51 [#] [0 comments]
Recently completed matches
1st Test | England | v | Bangladesh |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 1128.82 | 629.33 | |
Form | +0.57 | +21.86 | |
Expected Margin | England by 301 runs | ||
Actual Margin | England by 8 wickets | ||
Post-rating | 1125.95 | 640.26 |
A game that, by the score, went almost entirely to script. Bangladesh following on to England's large first innings total, before sneaking past the expected margin to improve their rating again. The English press continues to oscillate between patronising the Bangladeshi players and discussing the implications for the Ashes. Simon Hughes is not guilty of the former when making the point that Shakib's captaincy is too negative. Shakib was equally negative at home as well, but too, perhaps this is unsuprising, given the culture of Bangladeshi batting, a spread field would be a sound tactic; while a kid captain in a team habituated to losing can hardly be expected to judge the moment accurately. As I've stated before, Bangladesh need to play down as well as up, before they'll learn how to win.
In the latter category, the English selectors should be a little concerned. The batting, Trott aside, largely failed; and the bowling struggled to stem the runs, or take wickets when batting conditions were benign. Perhaps years of poor performance mean we under-estimate Bangladesh, and due credit should be given to them, when matching a good English side. There is, suprisingly, quite a few points of interest in game two.
Rankings at 2nd June 2010 | ||
---|---|---|
1. | Australia | 1220.38 |
2. | India | 1209.48 |
3. | South Africa | 1187.58 |
4. | England | 1125.95 |
5. | Sri Lanka | 1103.96 |
6. | Pakistan | 1073.88 |
7. | West Indies | 927.04 |
8. | New Zealand | 917.91 |
9. | Bangladesh | 640.26 |
10. | Zimbabwe | 556.79 |
11. | Ireland | 547.06 |
12. | Scotland | 464.97 |
13. | Namibia | 378.09 |
14. | Afghanistan | 362.06 |
15. | Kenya | 351.46 |
16. | U.S.A. | 296.99 |
17. | Uganda | 280.48 |
18. | Netherlands | 219.46 |
19. | Nepal | 196.51 |
20. | Canada | 177.28 |
21. | U.A.E. | 161.47 |
22. | Hong Kong | 148.65 |
23. | Bermuda | 138.61 |
24. | Cayman Is | 134.24 |
25. | Malaysia | 123.90 |
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 June, 2010 14:10:37 [#] [3 comments]