## Gibraltar with Ross Brooks; Associate and Affiliate Cricket Podcast Russell Degnan

The associate and affiliate cricket podcast is an attempt to expand coverage of associate tournaments by obtaining local knowledge of the relevant nations. If you have or intend to go to a tournament at associate level - men's women's, ICC, unaffiliated - then please get in touch in the comments or by email.

We're leading into an exciting final round of WCL and I-Cup games. Andrew Nixon (@andrewnixon79) is back to discuss the series between Canada and the UAE and Namibia and Afghanistan. We get a round-up of two European women's tournaments, one in Italy, and one in Jersey. Andrew interviews the General Manager of Gibraltar Cricket (@Gibraltar_Crick), Ross Brooks (@MyresideMan) about their performance in Italy, and recent developments on the Rock. We discuss Cricinfo's historical associate team, and rant about the myopia of cricket's supposed thought leaders. There is a preview of Ireland and Scotland's forthcoming matches against full members; and in news, the Americas divisional structure is revealed and Charlie Burke is to leave Hong Kong.

Direct Download Running Time 68min. Music from Martin Solveig, "Big in Japan"

Cricket - Associate - Podcast 28th August, 2013 10:30:33   [#] [0 comments]

## The ones that get away hurt the most, Ratings 17th August Russell Degnan

4th TestEnglandvAustralia
Pre-rating1220.81095.4
Form+6.6-32.4
Expected MarginEngland by 113 runs
Actual MarginEngland by 74 runs
Post-rating1218.91097.8

Australia are becoming so adept at losing they managed to let this match slip on three separate occasions. England batted badly in the first innings; loose shots left them with only 238 runs despite having 9 players go past double figures. Lyon took the most wickets (4/42) but he was the beneficiary of some outstandingly tight bowling from the seamers, with only Harris - who makes it back in penetration - giving away any sort of advantage.

In the reply, Rogers (110) was excellent, not in style, but in grit, and Watson contributed 68 before falling to a leg-side strangle, after which the batting fell away. Giving up two wickets shortly before the new ball meant that a promising lead became a paltry one.

Harris was immense in the second innings, taking 7/117, again well served by Lyon, but less so by Bird - who looked out of condition by the end - and Siddle. Even so, Bell was at least as good, if not more, making a decisive 113, but when he and Prior fell with the score at 251 early on the fourth day, and with a new ball, England were in deep trouble. Bresnan changed that, as did Australia's bowling which lacked purpose without Starc's ability to bowl yorkers, largely lost the plot.

And yet, on a pitch that had slowed and got easier for batting with each innings,Rogers and Warner got Australia off to the perfect start. With only 152 required with 9 wickets in hand, the game remained theirs to win. Yet they never got close. Broad's 6/50 was fast, attacking and typical of a player who periodically becomes world-class. But England was greatly assisted by indecisive play and poor footwork (from Rogers, Khawaja and Clarke), poor shots and harsh umpiring (Watson and Haddin), and a little luck all around.

But luck favours those who play in a way that allows it to help, and Australia did not do so when they needed to. They've not played a lot worse than England for the most part, and a side more capable of seizing the moment might have been going to the Oval with a lead or better. A side is only as good as what they can get on the scorebook though, and England and Australia have both shown that, even playing at a relatively similar level, when it counts they'll go their separate ways.

Both sides go to the Oval without much to prove, which may mean a few bowlers getting rested. Anderson has been listless since the opening test, it is a miracle Harris has got this far, and Watson seems to be a day to day proposition again. If the pitch will turn, a recall for Agar as a specialist number 7 might be worth pursuing. In any case, he won't likely make less runs than Watson to date - although Wade must surely be in the top-6 batsmen available. Any change is only worth pursuing if injury demands it though, Australia gain little by further changes at this point in the series; their young players remain unknown quantities and only repeated exposure will shed some light.

Only TestEngland WomenvAustralia Women
Actual MarginMatch drawn

A slow match, on a slow pitch. Wormsley is pretty but it might not be the best place for a women's test if this is the result. Australia will come away from this match believing they ought to have won. Elliott's 104 anchored a total of 6/331 declared, and after Ferling announced herself on the test scene by removing Taylor and Edwards, England had slumped to 6/113, still well short of the follow-on. 73 overs later, Knight and Marsh had added 156, the latter with one of the slowest fifties of all time, the former with 157. Another 29 run partnership off 22 overs from Marsh and Hazell meant England ended 17 runs behind, but left little time to force a result.

With only a small lead, much to lose, and not a lot of options to gain, Australia batted cautiously until shortly before the declaration when Fields (78*) hit out. Arguably, the declaration was late, given the scoring rate throughout and the time left to England. Perhaps Fields was hoping for a sudden collapse, but none came, and the game petered out interrupted by rain. The series turns now to the shorter forms, with, barring washouts or ties, each team needing to win four of six to win outright. After having the best of the test match, Australia would be slight favourites to do this. But a drawn series is perhaps the more likely result.

Rankings at 17th August 2013
1.South Africa1324.6
2.England1218.9
3.Pakistan1120.9
4.Australia1097.8
5.India1096.3
6.Sri Lanka997.9
7.West Indies963.8
8.New Zealand877.4
12.Zimbabwe546.0

10.Afghanistan575.7
11.Ireland558.9
13.Scotland430.3
14.Namibia405.9
15.Kenya287.0
16.U.A.E.235.0
17.Netherlands199.6

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 18th August, 2013 01:05:43   [#] [0 comments]

## Short Stat: On the Back of a Collapse Russell Degnan

One of the standout aspects of Australia's collapse in Durham was the tentative batting; admittedly it was what begun the collapse - Khawaja and Clarke's half hearted footwork - and not what continued it - Haddin and Watson's playing across the line. But it raises an interesting question over whether players play worse in the midst of a collapse, or much the same. Is there a drop in performance from the psychological pressure, in other words.

I tested this proposition using a technique Chris at Declaration Game used, by comparing the runs scored by the 5th and 6th wickets against the other innings, and matched that against the difference in runs between the fall of the 2nd and 4th wickets (the collapse amount - though most aren't a collapse).

As it turns out, there is no effect. The average scoring for the 5th-6th wickets is 59, which is consistent with one exception across the range of collapse amounts. Not only that, but there is so much randomness in the difference between the two innings, and the previous run-scoring, that even sample sizes over a hundred for low collapse amounts end up with reverse effects from one to the next.

You can see from all the data points that the difference remains resolutely centred at zero for all low amounts. This is actually doubly odd, because it indicates that even where several wickets have fallen for other reasons - a crumbling pitch or new ball - the difference between that and the previous innings was negligible.

Data clumping over shows some of the randomness, and don't be confused by the jump around 30; a different division produces a completely different result.

What both graphs do show though, is that where the previous two wickets have put on 200+ the average of the 5th-6th wickets combined drops to 45. It isn't clear why this is - the bowlers, presumably are tired - but perhaps one or more large preceding partnerships make it harder for an incoming batsman. Something to look at another day.

It does bode badly for Australia though. There is a tendency after a collapse to attribute it to the moment, and assume that next time, more focus and hard-work will arrest the problem. The data suggests that even losing three wickets for not many makes almost no difference to the mind-set. If a team is in the habit of losing 6 or 7 for not many it is because they are poor, and just as likely to lose quick wickets when the previous stands have been productive or dismal.

Cricket - Analysis 14th August, 2013 19:16:20   [#] [1 comment]

## Auty Cup with Peter Della Penna, WCL6 with Llewelyn Scott-Hoy; Associate and Affiliate Cricket Podcast Russell Degnan

The associate and affiliate cricket podcast is an attempt to expand coverage of associate tournaments by obtaining local knowledge of the relevant nations. If you have or intend to go to a tournament at associate level - men's women's, ICC, unaffiliated - then please get in touch in the comments or by email.

With more cricket going on than we can possibly cover regular guest, Peter Della Penna (@peterdellapenna) is back to talk about the Auty Cup and recent Americas U/19 tournament. We look back at World Cricket League 6, and I catch up with Vanuatu analyst Llewelyn Scott-Hoy for his take on the tournament. We touch on the Women's T20 Qualifiers, the opportunities for associates in women's cricket and the FinEst Cup gets a mention. We discuss rain and its consequences as it causes problems at just the wrong time in several tournaments. And we preview the I-Cup and WCL games in Canada and Namibia, the Asian Emerging Nations Tournament, and the EAP Rising Stars Trophy.

Direct Download Running Time 83min. Music from Martin Solveig, "Big in Japan"

Cricket - Associate - Podcast 11th August, 2013 02:02:24   [#] [0 comments]

## Fortune favours the superior team, Ratings 9th August Russell Degnan

3rd TestEnglandvAustralia
Pre-rating1224.31091.1
Form+18.2-54.8
Expected MarginEngland by 117 runs
Actual MarginMatch drawn
Post-rating1220.81095.4

Naturally, having written that the chance of a turn-around was low, Australia proceeded to bat as they haven't in years to compile a big score and declare. Rogers and Clarke were the key, the former showing why he has compiled suhc a formidable first-class record with crisp drives through the off-side, and the latter finally getting the start he needs to go on and compile a big score. Smith did well in support, before Haddin and Starc iced the innings.

Much debate was had about the declaration. Australia could not do much more. They scored quickly before both declarations, though perhaps an extra 10-15 overs might have helped before the first, allowing a more aggressive third innings (or even the follow-on). It was the be expected that England would score around 350. They are remarkably consistent on that front, partly because they have so many batsmen capable of making tons. Pietersen was brilliant, as he always is when scoring runs, but there is little else to add that hasn't been said elsewhere.

The end of Australia's innings ought to worry England. Anderson bowled the most overs by an Englsh pace-man ever in 2012. He is on course to almost equal that in 2013, ending the year on the unforgiving Australian turf. At his age - and Swann's age, the other bowler they are leaning on heavily - injuries are both more likely and troublesome. England has depth, but a few more decent Australian totals could cause problems. He has been their best bowler recently by some distance.

Australia have entered this test match with Bird instead of Starc - easily the most accurate Australian attack in years, if not the late-90s. Resting Harris must have been an option, as he is fragile, but they obviously prefer to get something from this series, and hope for the best over the longer term.

That Australia doesn't have something from this series is a combination of bad luck and an inability to win the moments they need to. This has been a problem for some time - Cardiff '09, multiple losses and draws against South Africa at home, and close losses to India and New Zealand. It may be meaningless; a sign the team fights hard but isn't good enough; a sign they lack experience in certain situations. Whatever it is, it will ultimately mean this series ends up looking lopsided rather than relatively close, especially if England are able to assert their superiority in the final matches.

Pre-rating141.3228.8
Form-18.2+23.7
Expected MarginCanada by 6 runs
Actual MarginMatch drawn
Post-rating136.5235.0

Canada will be rightly upset that the damaged drainage at their King City facility prevented so much play that this match was drawn. But for Swapnil Patil who scored a Bannerman-esque 65% of his team's first innings runs (76 not out) of 116, everything went Canada's way. Josh Gordon too 6/43, and Nitish Kumar (103) and Daesrath (111) helped them to 369. The remarkable Khurram Khan stayed in for 86 unbeaten overs on the final day, scoring 121 and meaning Canada finished still 6 wickets short. A superb fighting comeback from one of the surprise teams of this competition which left Canada rooted to the bottom of the table. The result in the other game meant both teams are now unable to make the final, but their final matches will provide a useful chance to prepare for the WT20 qualifiers.

I-Cup MatchNamibiavAfghanstan
Pre-rating423.8545.5
Form+14.0+54.8
Expected MarginAfghanistan by 12 runs
Actual MarginAfghanistan by 10 wickets
Post-rating575.7405.9

The key fixture of the round, and barring a very unlikely sequence of results, the final placings in the league stage. Afghanistan produced a thoroughly professional performance from Mohammad Nabi's 6/33 on the opening day, to Dawlatzai's hat-trick (5/23) to close the Namibian second innings. In between the batting, led by Stanikzai's 127, had enough contributions to build a sizable lead, bank the 20 points, and leave themselves needing only first-innings points, a draw, or anything less than 20 points from Scotland to make the final. Their rating shoots up again, now above Ireland, though not too much should be read into it, the final ought to be a very tight and interesting match.

Only TestEngland WomenvAustralia Women

I have no ratings for women's tests - not least because the last was two years ago - and while I'll put together some cross-format ratings at some point, for now, suffice that there is a place-holder. With the men's Ashes retained, this match might be the most interesting this week. The are two evenly matched sides. Australia's bowling slightly superior, with the pace of Ferling and Perry, and the movement of Schutt it is as good a lineup as any to have played women's cricket. They'll miss Sthalaker, but to the extent spin dominates it will help their batting.

In Lanning and Cameron Australia have the potential to put up imposing totals at a fast clip. But both are products of the T20/ODI era, and neither seems to settle in for the long haul. Perhaps that won't matter, but you suspect England's more experienced squad will grind out some decent totals, and they'll need to do the same. The world cup match was a low-scoring affair as both sides struggled with the movement of the opposition. A similarly lively pitch in the test could create a lottery. If Australia's bowlers settle and bowl well, they would have a slight advantage in the matchup, but England, at home, should be the slight favourite.

In good news, the ECB is streaming all the matches. It is poor form to wait until four days before the series starts to announce as much though. Women's cricket deserves better promotion than that. Interested fans deserve better than to not have any information on how they can follow the matches until it has become exceedingly difficult to find out how. This sort of thing shouldn't be that hard to get right.

Rankings at 9th August 2013
1.South Africa1324.6
2.England1220.8
3.Pakistan1120.9
4.India1096.3
5.Australia1095.4
6.Sri Lanka997.9
7.West Indies963.8
8.New Zealand877.4
12.Zimbabwe546.0

10.Afghanistan575.7
11.Ireland558.9
13.Scotland430.3
14.Namibia405.9
15.Kenya287.0
16.U.A.E.235.0
17.Netherlands199.6

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 August, 2013 01:09:41   [#] [0 comments]

## A treatise on DRS Russell Degnan

DRS controversy has been rumbling along in the background since the ICC introduced it. Whether for umpiring incompetence or bad luck, it has taken on a larger life since the Ashes started. That both teams (and their fans) are committed and experienced in its use has made its errors more obvious and troublesome. Weirdly, although I have quite firm views on the system, and have commented on numerous websites about it, I've only ever written a short piece discussing potential changes; rather than taking the time to write a thorough analysis. Now would seem an opportune time.

The DRS is often conflated with *-eye, or with technology. Properly, it is composed of three parts, and numerous sub-parts: the technology, which comprises *-eye, hotspot, snicko, and naturally, the tv cameras and audio; the player review; and the interface and process by which the review is actually done.

All three are flawed in current incarnations.

Although the technology receives the most criticism, by and large it is the least flawed component. It has limitations, rather than outright problems, and these aren't well dealt with by the system.

• Snicko is not used because it is too slow to match the image with the audio. The interface of image to picture is never quite clear - is the centre the frame, or one of the edges. And it has unknown reliability - it isn't clear if a ball passing the bat can cause a noise. That's a lot of interpretation, even if it picks up sounds reliably.
• Hotspot was sold up the river by over-enthusiastic commentators, because it has been clear for years that it cannot pick up fine nicks - though what is a nick, and at what level must we see one: visual? molecular? It also needs a lot of interpretation, as it must match the ball to various heat spots, some of which can be caused by incidental contact. But while false negatives abound, a clear edge that appears hotspot is often definitive, so it has some value.
• *-eye is probably the most reliable, though Hawkeye is oversold by its proponents. For reasons unknown the exact margin of error is never discussed, nor the circumstances under which it becomes unreliable. The ICC has put forward two interpretations that are both unnecessarily lenient - the 3m rule and the half ball hitting - and inconsistent depending on the decision being made. Interpreting it as "within 95% certainty" would be a big step forward, because the current rules invite ridicule.
• And lest we forget, a very large portion of the review system depends on television technology not far advanced from several decades ago. Its limitations are plainly obvious, and the lack of energy put into improving them is pathetic: the pictures remain of low quality, confused by shadow, with limited frame-rates that confuse runouts and make deflections harder to see, and the problem of foreshortening on catches near the ground is well known, but continues to cause problems.

In short, the technology is incapable, as presently designed, to provide fast, consistent, and objective decisions. You need only listen to the commentary to see that a dependence on televisuals for decisions is prone to interpretation and error; and not necessarily an improvement on the central umpire. Some of these can be fixed: improved frame-rates and higher definition cameras for runouts and stumpings; the introduction of automated no-ball checking, a trivial problem for computer vision; the use of *-eye systems to track deflections with high frame-rates, avoiding the need for hotspot and snicko. The ICC could easily invest in a proper decision system, and it has failed to do so, leaving the technology in the hands of the television studios, and the money in the hands of people whose primary aim is entertainment, not better decisions.

I've never felt comfortable with player reviews, mostly for aesthetic reasons. I like to see a raised finger and the game move on; I don't like to see extended discussions of dismissals, costing many minutes (and therefore overs) each day; I especially hate waiting around for an umpire the check a no-ball. The absence of any sense of what the umpires are looking for compounds the problem.

The players, needless to say, have reacted to the ability to review some decisions as economic theory suggests they would. While the system was sold as removing howlers, the players treat it as a resource. Reviews are spent on key wickets, and at key moments - particularly the final wicket of close matches, both Hobart and Trent Bridge suffering the indignity. They are overly cautious when holding one review, and reckless with their first; and they play the odds, looking for opportunities where the system will help them, rather than working to improve decisions over-all.

We should expect nothing less, and adding players to the decision making process has had entirely predictable results, which, unless you are a keen student of game theory hasn't added much to the game except extended footage of earnest discussions; and the opportunity to swear at deluded batsmen.

The most misunderstood part of the DRS is the process itself. Expectations have been put on it to make decisions, when it has been primarily designed to augment decisions. This is obvious if one reads the DRS protocol, though judging by the number of journalists claiming the third umpire "over-turns" the decision few have.

We can discuss the system as a series of decisions made based on different information, drawn for observation and the technological output. The central umpire has a set of observed occurrences (call it $$\{O_C\}$$); the third umpire has a different set of observations - not necessarily superior, but consistent with what the viewer at home sees - $$\{O_T\}$$.

For the original decision, the central umpire makes a decision, $$D$$, by determining if there was a wicket ($$W$$) based on the balance of probabilities - usually giving the batsman some benefit of the doubt, but not required by the laws.

D_C = Decision_C( P( W | \{O_C\} ))

It is important to note here that the third umpire does not make the final decision, but rather it rests with the central umpire. There is an expectation from viewers that the third umpire makes the decision themselves, based on what they see and the original decision:

D_R = Decision_T( P( W | D_C \wedge \{O_T\} ))

However, as the central umpire makes the decision, and the third umpire merely conveys the observations to him, it is actually as follows:

D_R = Decision_C( P( W | \{O_C\} \wedge \{O_T\} ))

This would not matter if the observations of the third umpire always led to a certain value for $$W$$, as there is no difference between the two equations in that case. But the absence of certainty means the system produces results that aren't always easy to interpret.

The Trott LBW at Trent Bridge was a case in point. The decision rested on whether he had hit the ball, for which there was no conclusive evidence. Hotspot, as discussed above, can only prove an edge if a mark in the right position, ($$H$$) is detected, otherwise the probability of an edge, $$E$$ is an unknown (let's say $$a$$).

\begin{eqnarray}
P( E | H ) = 1 \\
P( E | \neg H ) = a
\end{eqnarray}

The central umpire may have based his determination that there was an edge on hearing a noise, $$N$$, holding that opinion with probability b. As hotspot came up negative, the probability of there being an edge is reduced, but there is no set amount by which it might be reduced, we only know that:

\begin{eqnarray}
P( E | N ) = b \\
a \leq P( E | N \wedge \neg H ) \leq b
\end{eqnarray}

If potential sources of the noise are found - the ground or pad being hit by the bat - then it is reasonable for the umpire to re-think their determination of an edge, and therefore change their decision as $$P( E )$$ declines - remembering that this may have been the key observation in determining $$D$$.

The downside to this process is that in general, the central umpire's faith in their own judgement declines. Further observations are as likely to be inconclusive or contradictory as confirmative. The central umpire is forced to make a decision on their own, and then decide if, based on footage they don't see, but only have relayed to them, that original judgement was wrong.

This is further confused by strict process under which Hawkeye is used, whereby the technology does make a decision, and that depends on the original decision.

D_R = Decision_H( P( W | D_C \wedge \{O_H\} ))

This creates its own inconsistency, in that should the central umpire decide that there was an edge, but was satisfied that the ball was hitting the stumps, the absence of an edge does not change the first decision. And hence a ball clipping leg stump is not out (umpire's call), even if the umpire would have given it out, if not for the edge.

The path forward for the DRS is to recognise that the technology has severe limitations, and focus our attention on those aspects of it that work, and work quickly and without intervention. The central umpire is only undermined by making multiple decisions, and given easily accessible technology, there is no reason they could not augment their original decision with help, rather than a complicated process involving player requests and an interpreted but inconclusive technology. Where the technology is conclusive, and can be relayed to the umpire, the right decision will always be made. Where it is not conclusive, then nothing is lost by ignoring it as in these cases:

P( W | \{O_C\} \wedge \{O_T\} ) \approx P( W | \{O_C\} )

That is, there is no change in the probability of a wicket with more, but useless and time consuming observations.

The central umpire, given a hand-held device to show the results - as now, either out, not out, or unpire's call - of automated no-ball, *-eye, and edge detection could make prompt and unambiguous decisions with confidence that the tv replays would struggle to second-guess them. There would be no need for player reviews because a player couldn't reasonably expect the decision to be over-turned when the primary evidence has already been examined. In particular cases (such as whether the ball hit bat or pad first), when necessary, they could instigate discussion with the third umpire to review the footage. But by and large, there is no reason why in today's technological environment, a central umpire should be subject to review by television footage that is very often inconclusive and adding little.

That sort of system is easily achievable, but some way off. Right now, the ICC needs to do two things: firstly, focus on improving the quality of the technology to meet the requirements of a decision system, and not a broadcaster; and secondly, better communicate the process of decision making, by broadcasting the umpire's discussions to allow people to understand the reasoning behind the decision. Despite boundless good-will from people who believe in technological solutions to umpiring ills, trust in the DRS has fallen to levels where it cannot survive.

Cricket - Articles 9th August, 2013 00:30:38   [#] [4 comments]

## A right royal flogging, Ratings 1st August Russell Degnan

2nd TestEnglandvAustralia
Pre-rating1209.41115.6
Form-15.4-23.2
Expected MarginEngland by 97 runs
Actual MarginEngland by 347 runs
Post-rating1224.31091.1

One of the unremarked quirks of this match was that, by batting, England both negated their strategy in 10/11, and (at least in recent statistical history) reduced their chances of both a victory and a draw. After a fourth successive shambolic batting effort in a row from Australia it appears they can afford to do just that. Australia's bowling has, so far, been reasonable, though not as good as hoped. The continuing absence of Bird, particularly at Lord's, is a tacit admission that Shield statistics, and even tour form, are irrelevant (though we knew that already). The continuing success of a strategy built on looks and not results is there for all to see. But in the first innings, notwithstanding Bell's fine century and a useful rear-guard from Broad and Swann, 361 looked an under-par score.

For a decent line-up. Which Australia is not. Watson top-scored, which is odd, because his failure is there for all to see. Compounded by a terrible review, but let's be frank, if this team is dwelling on its reviews, it is focused on the wrong thing. No amount of reviews can rescue 128 all out.

The down-side of batting is often a need to enforce the follow-on to create a result. Turns out if the opposition are hapless that is not a problem. England had time for Cook to get the odd hint from the tv producers, and still schedule a fifth day golf match. Dropping Root early didn't help Australia, and again they made the early running. But no bowler can expect to back-up a few hours after their first effort and maintain it. Especially when the spinner is struggling.

The eventual target, 583, was largely irrelevant. Noone expected Australia to get within a sighter of it, and they did not. That bodes badly for the rest of the series; as we've seen in the recent past, once a side is down they tend to capitulate repeatedly with modern schedules. Khawaja and Clarke showed a little class, but no backbone, and Swann got perhaps the least deserved 9 wickets in a match in recent memory. That's what happens when a team is outclassed though. Worse, it is hard to see it improving dramatically.

Rankings at 1st August 2013
1.South Africa1324.6
2.England1224.3
3.Pakistan1120.9
4.India1096.3
5.Australia1091.1
6.Sri Lanka997.9
7.West Indies963.8
8.New Zealand877.4
11.Zimbabwe546.0

10.Ireland558.9
12.Afghanistan545.5
13.Scotland430.3
14.Namibia423.8
15.Kenya287.0
16.U.A.E.228.8
17.Netherlands199.6