You could be forgiven for thinking the ICC banned test cricket, such has been the outrage at the demise of the proposed 2013 test championship. Lined up against the ICC are current and former English players, numerous columnists, and spammers masquerading as saviours.

Gideon Haigh was late to comment, is typically well argued, but veers too quickly into malice. The demise of the championship is regrettable, perhaps, but it didn't deserve this eulogy:

"It [the test championship] was welcomed as a much-needed innovation: a chance to contextualise the game's most skilful and historic format, and enrich it with a finale worth the name."

A format of the game that's charm rests heavily on playing long series of games under different conditions wasn't being blessed with a finale of three games on probable neutral territory. Rather, it threatened to be laboured with another unloved initiative that noone would take seriously as being decisive, and would make a mockery of the title of world champion.

Haigh is equally quick to make accusations of hypocrisy at the ICC members who voted with their wallets, while apparently piously supporting the longer form. While representatives of the full members did speak out in favour of test cricket, both his cited examples were from the major test nations - India and South Africa. Not surprisingly, two of the boards likely to get a berth in the test championship. And, likewise, two boards less constrained by financial difficulties.

When the test championship format was first proposed by Martin Crowe it was intended to have eight teams, playing an extra round. That was too much for the ICC, taking, as it would, more than a month, so the 5th through 8th teams were cut. Their upside to supporting the test championship: none. In fact, of the thirteen members of the ICC executive, three are completely excluded from test cricket, but (at least by its original intention) the main financial beneficiaries of the Champions Trophy, four had no chance of qualifying for the final, and two (financially, particularly weak members) would have considered themselves a poor chance at best.

The proposed test championship mirrored perfectly test cricket itself: exclusive to the detriment of its weaker members, and in a feat of the greatest irony, providing context for the four members who actually need none in their match-ups. Good riddance, to be frank.

Test cricket might be threatened, but to the extent it is, it is not T20 doing the threatening, but the actions of the members apparently most supportive of the form. Sportsmen are driven by status. They want to be paid what they feel they deserve, given the pay of comparable players. In a world where financially weak members can't match what the market offers for their best players, but the financially successful boards can shower riches on second rate cricketers, it is a grave injustice not to let cricketers from poor countries achieve better pay. But there is a second aspect to status seeking, and that is to perform on the highest stage, to draw plaudits from the public and fellow players, to be compared favourably with greats from past and present. Test cricket remains the avenue by which that status must be achieved. But access to it is being steadily eroded, and that, more than anything, hurts test cricket.

Cricket is slowly globalising, the game spreading gradually, with as many players outside the test nations now as play in any individual non-subcontinental nation. Greats players of the future will increasingly emerge from outside test cricket's current boundaries, and they'll continue to be produced in the smaller test nations - even though, by and large, the biggest, strongest teams will remain what they are now: India, England, Australia and South Africa.

Yet, in the very near future, it will be T20 with the largest, most inclusive world championship, T20 that offers the highest pay, and the best opportunities for professional advancement. Unless it quickly changes, test cricket will offer no, or only a small world championship, will continue to be barred to the vast minority of playing nations, will continue to offer to its weaker full members short series seen as warmups at best, and inconveniences to be avoided at worst. If test cricket is to be the pinnacle of the sport it must be the pinnacle of achievement for all its players, not only those in England, Australia and India. And test cricket is not; it was, perhaps 20 years ago, but it is not now.

There is a widely held belief that test cricket might, soon, be reduced only to "those teams that care for it", meaning those same three, if not those two. This is true, but back to front, test cricket is slowly being eroded back to those three teams, in the pursuit of profit that only playing your fellow rich nations can bring. When there are at least a dozen nations worth of cricketers who would saw off their right arm to play test cricket in the sort of tournament I outlined here, that is not the inevitable result of change, it is wilful destruction.

Cricket - Articles 31st October, 2011 23:47:21   [#] [3 comments] 

Recent Results

1st Test	Pakistan	v	Sri Lanka
Pre-rating	1035.89		1052.15
Form	+8.97		-11.84
Expected Margin	Sri Lanka by 8 runs
Actual Margin	Match Drawn
Post-rating	1038.35		1048.99

For four and a half days Pakistan did nearly everything required to win on a placid pitch. Bowled tightly and induced some poor shots to roll Sri Lanka for 197, batted patiently and in partnerships (each of the first 5 wickets made moe than 75) to compile 511 (Taufeeq Umar 236), and reduced Sri Lanka to 5/233 with a day of effort and some good deliveries. Then they ran into a Sangakarra shaped road-block, who, with by Prasanna Jayawardene put on 20 for the 6th wicket. It was just enough, 10 overs fewer and Pakistan would have fancied the chase. Pakistan's catching didn't help, but Sri Lanka conjured another draw, maintaining, for now, their ranking, but looking increasingly unlikely to take 20 wickets, and increasingly prone to sudden collapse. Pakistan are not immune to either of those (less so the first with the skillful Umar Gul leading the attack), so the series is far from played out, but only one team looks likely to win.

1st Test	Bangladesh	v	West Indies
Pre-rating	617.01		922.70
Form	+11.09		+6.77
Expected Margin	West Indies by 103 runs
Actual Margin	Match Drawn
Post-rating	622.73		921.28

Not often can Bangladesh have been said to dominate an opposition, but they did so here, cruelly denied by two washed out day's play - sadly too, better drainage would have seen almost no play lost. The undoubted hero was Elias Sunny, taking 6/94 in his debut innings to bowl West Indies out for 244. Even that was more than Bangladesh ought to have allowed after they declared at 9/350, but lack of experience dogs their attempts to close out games, and Sammy blasted 58 invaluable runs. The second innings batting was laboured when it needed to be attacking, and the game looked certain to drift towards a draw when Mushfiqur Rahim, on his test captaincy debut, declared again, offering a 226 runs in 37 overs sized carrot. They declined, but not before losing two wickets to Sunny and Shakib (as usual). The West Indies have been terrible since closing out the one day series, and a sharp improvement is needed if they are to prevent successive series losses to a side who might soon start believing they can take their scalp.

Rankings at 26th October 2011
1.	England	1333.15
2.	South Africa	1180.15
3.	Australia	1133.16
4.	India	1111.89
5.	Sri Lanka	1048.99
6.	Pakistan	1038.35
7.	West Indies	921.28
8.	New Zealand	885.38
9.	Bangladesh	622.73
10.	Zimbabwe	553.31
11.	Ireland	559.06
12.	Afghanistan	514.53
13.	Scotland	437.45
14.	Namibia	407.53
15.	Kenya	338.92
16.	U.S.A.	296.99
17.	Uganda	268.44
18.	U.A.E.	219.51
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 26th October, 2011 23:47:24   [#] [0 comments] 

India's season started as it inevitably does these does these days, with an endless series of ODIs against a side that doesn't need, nor care, to play them. It was accompanied, as it always is, by articles bemoaning the pointlessness of it all, except this time was different. This time, the crowds stayed away too. Cue, even greater panic, that the Indian public could be sated with "too much cricket".

I beg to differ. Harsha Bhogle is not the first to point out that media has long had a simple formula for valuing rights. The FTP and world cup are both structured around maximising value from a simple formula: "Are India playing? And are India winning?" What is not mentioned is how deleterious constructing a schedule around such a inane formula is to the wider game.

As long as Indian audiencess could be guaranteed to attend and watch games as long as India was involved, it mattered not a bit that the series was too long, too frequently played, or just downright unnecessary. If we have passed that limit, there might be hope for the game yet.

Too much cricket?

Inevitably, the first response to smaller crowds is to blame too much cricket. An explanation that makes sense at an economic level: if supply is increased, the price must drop to match demand, and if the price is the cost of someone's attention, you risk losing them. But it is not without weaknesses. For starters, there is not that much cricket. In comparison with most other sports, there is very little top class cricket, played at particular venues in any year. Even in a busy year, including the world cup, IPL and Champions' League, Mumbai hasn't had more than 20 odd days of cricket this year. That is still comparable to the amount of sport various football leagues put on, in a city with a massive population and only one team vying for attention. It is only half the amount of games seen in the NBA or NHL, and less than a quarter the number in the MLB.

It really isn't over-supply that is the problem, it is over-supply of a dud product.

Too many trophies!

Take any sport, players will play for one or two, maybe up to four trophies in a year, though the lesser trophies tend to be seen in a lesser light. They play long seasons culminating in the awarding of something significant. Now look at the list of trophies teams Shane Watson plays for, competed in over the past 12 months:

Border-Gavaskar Trophy
Australia in India ODI series
Sri Lanka in Australia T20I Match
Sri Lanka in Australia ODI Series
The Ashes
England in Australia T20I Series
England in Australia ODI Series
ICC Cricket World Cup
Australia in Bangladesh ODI Series
Australia in Sri Lanka T20I Series
Australia in Sri Lanka ODI Series
Warne-Muralitharan Trophy
Sheffield Shield
Ryobi One Day Cup
Big Bash T20
Indian Premier League
Champions League

That's SEVENTEEN competitions. Even discounting domestic tournaments, there are still far too many trophies for any fan to care about the bulk of them, and it should be no surprise that they don't. As few as two actually resonate, regardless of the cricket played. The cricket calendar needs drastic reform. Bilateral tours have their place, but they are a relic of the 19th century; other sports did away with them a long time ago because they breed financial inequalities, scheduling chaos and lack context. Having three formats is bad enough. Attempting to interest fans in half a dozen competitions in each of them is just ridiculous.

All hail our media overlords?

Implied or stated in several pieces lamenting the demise of the poorly thought out test championship proposal for at least six years was the idea that media companies control what cricket is played. Bhogle explicitly draws a distinction between the "romantic" players, most media and some administrators, and the "business" orientated media companies that apparently drive scheduling.

There is no question the media companies are influential, push for what makes them money, and contract in requirements that guarantee they'll receive what they've been promised. The demise of the test championship is partly the fault of one of those contractual clauses. But it is also the fault of administrators, and more importantly, players. Romantic or not, and in favour of more context or not, they still expect to be paid top dollar, often via revenue sharing agreements with their respective boards, and not one has come out in favour of less money for better, more context driven, cricket.

Boards and players have a choice in what they play - what they sell to media companies. Barring the (Packer/ICL) intervention of a media company into scheduling, a prospect far more likely outside the three rich nations, that is a free choice. There is no market to be fought against, because there is no market for the player's talents outside what currently exists. If some of those choices result in less money, then they will survive, as they did only 15 years ago when money was far scarcer.

Dileep Premachandran has it exactly right when he states that:

"Context is everything and the Ashes rivalry aside, it's hard to find any in the modern game."

Other sports are very keen to gain a foothold in the Indian sport-media market; other sports have context. If crowds are down in India it ought to be a wake-up call that there is more to administration and scheduling than hitching your sport onto a parochialism-driven gracy-train. India are not bound to cricket, if anything, they are bound to Sachin. When he retires, Indian cricket (and therefore world cricket) might be only an Indian basketball or footballing superstar away from some significant drops in revenue. In a population that big, one of those superstars is only a matter of time.

Cricket - Articles 25th October, 2011 23:42:14   [#] [3 comments] 

Much to catch up on, including the return of Pakistan, a round of I-Cup and the forthcoming glut of cricket tours.

Recent Results

4th Test	England	v	India
Pre-rating	1310.97		1133.86
Form	+75.12		-72.81
Expected Margin	England by 139 runs
Actual Margin	England by an innings and 8 runs
Post-rating	1333.15		1111.89
Series Rating	1537.45		904.95

There is not much left to say about this series, particularly so far removed from its end. India gave the impression for much of this match - and indeed for the painful 3 weeks of one-dayers that followed - that they'd rather be elsewhere. That happens sometimes, teams beaten before they walk onto the park, and, injured, depleted and harried, only Dravid and an unlikely partnership between Tendulkar and Mishra kept the scorecard respectable.

There is, however, one remarkable addendum to England's season. The ratings are fairly accurate, it is possible for a team to be over- or under-rated, and for the combination to inflate a team's series rating a little. But only very special teams win as well as England won this series. In fact, over 4 or more tests, only four prior teams have got a series rating better than 1480:

South Africa 1969/70 vs. Australia: 1482.15912210745
West Indies 1985/86 vs. England: 1490.59360551923
Australia 2006/07 vs. England: 1506.18166685487
Australia 1948 vs. England: 1509.91406544873

That is good company to be keeping. It is extraordinary company to be beating by a margin.

1 Test	Zimbabwe	v	Pakistan
Pre-rating	552.33		1036.15
Form	-16.30		+12.66
Expected Margin	Pakistan by 192 runs
Actual Margin	Pakistan by 7 wickets
Post-rating	553.71		1035.89

Looking back, Zimbabwe just never scored enough runs. But for 150 overs it seemed like they were. Mawoyo's epic 163 not out, carrying his bat for 5 sessions as Zimbabwe made their way to 412 was the most impressive knock by a Zimbabwean since Flower retired, grinding down his opponents with the same determination Zimbabwe had used to overcome Bangladesh in their previous test. Pakistan are a better side than that though, first containing Zimbabwe with 4 wickets from Saeed Ajmal and Aizaz Cheema, then with Younis Khan back in the side and setting down roots, grinding out a lead, albeit helped by some uncharacteristically sloppy fielding.

A draw in the offing, but needing to survive at least 3 sessions, Zimbabwe failed badly in the second innings, only Taibu offered resistance to the spinners, and Price will regret that but for some poor cricket earlier he'd have had a good chance to rolling Pakistan on the final day. Ultimately the result was not far from what you'd expect, but Zimbabwe are competitive, even if a win is unlikely against the middle tier of nations. That is an important start.

I-Cup Match	Ireland	v	Namibia
Pre-rating	556.46		400.40
Form	+14.94		+29.91
Expected Margin	Ireland by 128 runs
Actual Margin	Ireland by 5 wickets
Post-rating	555.64		408.81

Namibia had a lot to prove in this match, having been unfairly kept out of the last I-Cup despite being the finalist the previous edition, and as winners of the I-Shield. Ireland were below strength but still formidable and the game developed into a tense tussle, the Irish eventually prevailing early on day 4. Dockrell was the difference, taking 8/112 for the match, and scoring 53 in support of the unbeaten White (123*). He was equalled in his efforts by Viljoen (7/127, 0 and 87), opening the bowling and batting at 3 but depth and experience told for the Irish in the final reckoning.

\

I-Cup Match	Ireland	v	Canada
Pre-rating	555.64		164.19
Form	+9.55		-32.42
Expected Margin	Ireland by 246 runs
Actual Margin	Ireland by an innings and 11 runs
Post-rating	559.06		154.88

There was a Netherlands vs Kenya match before this game, abandoned without a ball bowled; the sort of conditions that will haunt all the main European associates if my experience is relevant. Having suffered from the rain in the previous I-Cup Ireland made sure there were no such issues against an abject Canada. Dismissing Stirling for a brutal 107 (121) gave only brief respite before O'Brien smashed 79 off 59 balls while Cusack, no wallflower, made 81 (127). Bizarrely, having dismissed Ireland quickly at the start of day 2, Canada proceeded to out-pace Ireland, without the successful innings building, bar young Gunasakera 66 (71). van der Merwe took 5, but it was reckless batting, later scorned by their opponents, even if Rizwan Cheema's insane 97 off 45 balls with 10 sixes would have entertained those in attendance. All over inside two days, a good win for Ireland, but even though the injection of youth is welcome, Canada must marry that to common sense cricket lest they continue to drift backwards compared to the other associates.

3 Tests	Sri Lanka	v	Australia
Pre-rating	1070.23		1125.02
Form	-4.27		-85.09
Expected Margin	Sri Lanka by 23 runs
1st Test	Australia by 125 runs
2nd Test	Match Drawn
3rd Test	Match Drawn
Post-rating	1052.15		1133.16
Series Rating	1054.69		1138.02

Rain prevented Sri Lanka suffering the same mauling Australia and India suffered when they crossed swords with England, but hasn't hidden their lack of penetration since Muralitharan retired. Rain again came to play in this series, as it has in the past, and only the first test, played on a testing pitch - though hardly the minefield the ICC cited them for - came to a conclusion. Whatever, the good batsmen flourished well enough, Hussey scored 95 to give Australia a competitive total, made to look brilliant by, unexpectedly, Lyon (5/34) and Watson (3/11), so often dangerous in the right conditions. Australia made an attempt to lose from an impregnible position, collapsing again to 6/112 and 7/130, though Clarke played well for his 60, and the bowlers added some ultimately valuable runs. For a while Jayawardene and Matthews looked an outside chance of making an unbelievable chase, such was their control, but Harris prevailed, and the rest of the team produced only 50 runs between them.

Australia left off where they began in the second test, but rain and a flat pitch prevented them pressing the advantage; while they managed to extract themselves from a diffcult position in the third. A one-nil series win is nevertheless an impressive result for the visitors, even if it comes with caveats. Lyon and Copeland had impressive debuts, but ended the series without impressive averages as the broad but flaky shoulders of Harris and Watson shouldered the load. Carrying Johnson is increasongly problematic. Likewise, Hussey was immense, making two tons and two 90s in 5 knocks, and Clarke, Marsh and Hughes all made important runs, but Ponting continues his rut.

For Sri Lanka, the performance of Herath (16w @ 23.0) and the increasingly impressive Mathews (274r @ 91.3) were the only real bright spots in a series they would have expected to win. The batting still rests largely on the shoulders of the aging Sangakarra and Jayawardene, and the bowling looks threadbare as they rebuild. Having punched above their weight for the past decade they look like they'll struggle for a while now.

I-Cup Match	Namibia	v	Scotland
Pre-rating	408.81		436.06
Form	+24.31		-32.22
Expected Margin	Namibia by an 36 runs
Actual Margin	Match drawn
Post-rating	407.53		437.45

Close to full strength, last year's finalists ultimately lacked the firepower to see off Namibia in another interesting game. Flannigan (102) and Coetzer (62) anchored the Scottish innings of 350, Viljoen again opening and taking 5 wickets before heading out to open the batting. In reply, 4 players got to 38, but none got past 51, as Haq took 6/32. That left Scotland free to set a target, a task they arguably took too long in achieving, declaring at 5/296 383 in front, with a Mommsen century. An epic 63 not out off 225 balls from Ya France, and a breezy 88 from Snyman was enough to achieve the draw. Namibia's only 3 points from 2 games, but having played two of the best sides they'll be confident of improving.

I-Cup Match	U.A.E.	v	Afghanistan
Pre-rating	201.48		518.44
Form	+55.92		-93.93
Expected Margin	Afghanistan by an 108 runs
Actual Margin	Match drawn
Post-rating	219.51		514.53

A somewhat surprising result, but one Afghanistan escaped from with a draw thanks to the batting of Mohammad Nabi (117 and 35 off 153). The UAE's experienced lower-middle order piled on the runs without anyone scoring a ton, to get to 462, a score Afghanistan should have matched after Nabi and 19 yo. Javed Ahmadi (80) got the score to 3/256. Arshad Ali took 6/45 however to give them a 134 run lead and plenty of time to capitalise. Bizarrely, after a great start, UAE both collapsed and dithered over doing so, taking 28 overs to score their last 40 runs against Mirwais Ashraf, which with Afghanistan still 232 runs behind and 7 wickets down at the close was unnecessarily slow. Nevertheless, the fighting qualities of the Afghans, who faced out another 44 overs after going 6 down must be admired, and the opportunity was lost for the Emirates nation.

Forthcoming Series

3 Tests	Pakistan	v	Sri Lanka
Pre-rating	1035.89		1052.15
Form	+8.97		-11.84
Expected Margin	Pakistan by 8 runs

I have no idea what to make of these two teams. The ratings say it should be close, and it may well be (notwithstanding the beat-down being applied in the first test), but it is never so easy. Pakistan's selection policy is so random as to make the ratings meaningless from one test to the next. They seem to have a reasonable side, but they are prone to collapse still, and their bowling has an unknown quality to it. Sri Lanka, likewise, look to be drifting backwards, but they've played so many rain-affected tests it is yet to be reflected in the ratings. Pakistan probably ought to win, as a side trying to win is undoubtedly superior to the opposite. Even if they are missing some quality talent, they have never lacked for replacements. If Pakistan's batting fragility returns Sri Lanka have the batting to take a win, and a draw is always on the cards with stacked lineups. Pakistan's bowling to be the difference, however.

2 Tests	Bangladesh	v	West Indies
Pre-rating	617.01		922.70
Form	+11.09		+6.77
Expected Margin	West Indies by 103 runs

This is a series Bangladesh ought to target for a win, but also one they are still likely not to. They can ill afford the sort of political ruptures that saw Shaqib al Hasan stripped of the captaincy. Regardless of the weak result in Zimbabwe, and his innate negativity he is their talisman and was gradually extracting better performances from his team-mates. The West Indies have their own political problems, but played quite well at home against India, even if they had nothing to show for it. They ought to be too good for Bangladesh, though as often seems to be the case these days, games are likely to be decided by one individual performance - the batsman who goes on, or the bowler who induces a collapse - as by the collective efforts of two fragile teams.

Rankings at 21st October 2011
1.	England	1333.15
2.	South Africa	1180.15
3.	Australia	1133.16
4.	India	1111.89
5.	Sri Lanka	1052.15
6.	Pakistan	1035.89
7.	West Indies	922.70
8.	New Zealand	885.38
9.	Bangladesh	617.01
10.	Zimbabwe	553.31
11.	Ireland	559.06
12.	Afghanistan	514.53
13.	Scotland	437.45
14.	Namibia	407.53
15.	Kenya	338.92
16.	U.S.A.	296.99
17.	Uganda	268.44
18.	U.A.E.	219.51
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 21st October, 2011 08:53:49   [#] [0 comments]