Ratings - 25th November 2010
Russell Degnan

Recently completed matches

2nd TestIndiavNew Zealand
Pre-rating1205.31929.49
Form-6.80+7.70
Expected MarginIndia by 188 runs
Actual MarginIndia by an innings and 198 runs
Post-rating1215.76913.44
Series Rating1215.55916.89

1-0 to the In-dia. The magnitude of victory in the final test allowed them to sneak past Australia to claim the number one spot (by about 19 runs, which made it interesting for me, if noone else) but this wasn't the resounding series win expected. Nevertheless, India should always play to their strengths, and that is their batting. Having finally rolled New Zealand for a sub-par total, Dravid anchored an onslaught from which they couldn't possibly lose, leaving Harbajan, Sharma and Ojha to do the rest. New Zealand can point to injuries to key players and a punishing schedule for their batting malaise, but they'll still be disappointed to go down by such a large margin having secured draws in the first two games. They slip back below the West Indies in the rankings as a consequence. For India, the real test of their summer lies on the other side of the Indian Ocean.


Forthcoming Series

5 TestsAustraliavEngland
Pre-rating1215.201157.21
Form-8.09+33.31
Expected MarginAustralia by 79 runs

No sporting contest has a lead-up like the Ashes. No Ashes has had a lead-up like this one. Four years ago there was an over-riding sense that England had gone backwards, through injuries, and Australia consolidated. Absent home advantage and the luck they rode to victory in 2005 they were always likely to struggle, though their final capitulation was a shock.

This series is different, England have moved forward from 2009; Australia stagnated, if not regressed. England are well prepared, coached and drilled, and have a young deep squad with enormous potential; Australia are ageing, inconsistent, prone to collapse and regularly failing to close out games.

That said, in the rankings Australia retain second spot, albeit by narrow margins all-round. They put in a good performance against India, only just failing to draw the series, and retain the ability to play well and win. England are steadily improving, but not yet world beaters. They can win, but winning away from home is no easy task.

Those looking for a parallel needn't look far though: in 1954-55, Australia (1256.84) was coming off a high, having lost the Ashes in 1953; England (1183.23) was moving into their best ever period. Hutton's side won 3-1, but were annihilated in Brisbane by an innings and 154 runs. Forget the talk of auguries: this series won't be won in the first game, on the opening morning or after the first ball, Australia do play better in Brisbane than anywhere else in Australia - a fact that was also true in 2006-07 where if not for Giles dropping Ponting Adelaide may have been a different proposition. England are also accustomed to starting poorly and winning, having done so in 2005 and 2009.

My instincts tell me this series will end a 2-2 draw, but as with any close series, the team that plays better when it matters will be the one to win. England will be very confident if they can escape Brisbane with a draw - a possibility heightened by the persistent chance of rain. If they win, Australia will consume themselves with recriminations over selection, and the need for change.

Thus, Brisbane matters, but it matters much more for Australia; the selectors have put their faith in a side that has persistently under-performed with the bat, and lost a lot more than it has won against the top few sides in world cricket. In 2006-07 backing essentially the same side that had lost the Ashes in England was a resounding success. I don't see it working near as well this time around.


Rankings at 25th November 2010
1.India1215.76
2.Australia1215.20
3.South Africa1187.03
4.England1157.21
5.Sri Lanka1104.89
6.West Indies922.03
7.New Zealand913.44
8.Bangladesh629.55
9.Zimbabwe556.79

10.Ireland556.46
11.Scotland461.60
12.Afghanistan445.10
13.Namibia388.49
14.Kenya338.92
15.U.S.A.296.99
16.Uganda268.44
17.Nepal196.51
18.Netherlands195.69
19.U.A.E.182.53
20.Canada177.51
21.Hong Kong148.65
22.Cayman Is134.24
23.Malaysia123.90
24.Bermuda105.40

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 25th November, 2010 08:59:11   [#] [0 comments] 

"...was dismissed just before the close of play"
Russell Degnan

Very few statements carry the sense of irresponsibility quite as much as being dismissed right on the close of play. A new player needed at the crease, perhaps in failing light, the opposition with their tails up. The night-watchmen exists purely to shield batsmen from that eventuality, should it be necessary. Which begs the question, who is the most irresponsible batsman?

To work this out I counted the number of times a batsmen was not out at the close of play, and the number of times there were dismissed within 10 runs of the score at the close of play, to find a percentage. The overall percentage amongst players surveyed is 18.9%. If this seems high, note that the expected average partnership is around 30, and therefore, all things being equal, a batsman will be dismissed within 10 runs of an average partnership 1/6 (or 16.7%) of the time.

Let's start with the dependable batsmen:

Set BatsmenNot OutDismissedTotal 
LawryWM211224.5%
HusseyMEK191205.0%
PrinceAG191205.0%
AmissDL191205.0%
RichardsIVA312336.1%
LaxmanVVS312336.1%
PontingRT343378.1%
RanatungaA212238.7%
DravidR626688.8%
BoycottG414458.9%

This is filtered by batsman well set (had scored 20 runs already) and more than 20 instances of being around at the close. As you'd expect it consists mostly of players with exemplary techniques and a willingness to come back tomorrow to score more.

At the other end of the table are some surprises:

Set BatsmenNot OutDismissedTotal 
LloydCH22113333.3%
BothamIT1892733.3%
MiandadJaved34144829.2%
PietersenKP1772429.2%
StraussAJ2293129.0%
WaughME2082828.6%
RichardsonMH1762326.1%
de SilvaPA2383125.8%
WeekesED2172825.0%
GattingMW1862425.0%

A few of these players could be described as lazy or overly aggressive, but it is nevertheless a surprise to see greats such as Weekes, Lloyd and Miandad, or a batsman as consistent as Richardson, getting out 30 of the time they are present at the close of play. Perhaps more surprising is the presence of two current England players in Pietersen and Strauss, and Cook (31.6% off 19 innings). You can never rule out pure bad luck in this type of statistic, but "declared half an hour before the close of play" might be worth considering for the Australians this summer.


Turning to the benefits of night-watchmen, the percentage of dismissals overall climbs to 29.9% for all players not set (less than 20) dismissed before the close. That is, a batsman is 50% more likely to be dismissed before the close if they are new to the crease. The players being dismissed the most aren't too surprising, though perhaps their level of vulnerability is:

Unset BatsmenNot OutDismissedTotal 
RutherfordKR991850.0%
MorrisonDK991850.0%
AmbroseCEL13122548.0%
MarshallMD11102147.6%
AshrafulMohammad1081844.4%
PatelDN971643.8%
HadleeRJ1171838.9%
ParoreAC1171838.9%
BurgessMG1061637.5%
BaileyTE1692536.0%
WarneSK1692536.0%

Shane Warne was perhaps not the best choice as a night-watchman. Other notably high players, batsmen, include openers Greenidge (33.3% off 27 innings) and Gooch (30.3% off 33), and candidates for a night-watchman: Thorpe (30.8% off 26), Ponting (30.4% off 23) and Lara (27.3% off 22). At the reliable end:

Unset BatsmenNot OutDismissedTotal 
TendulkarSR281293.4%
VaughanMP201214.8%
LaxmanVVS191205.0%
RussellRC181195.3%
GangulySC181195.3%
SmithGC171185.6%
MartynDR151166.3%
CowdreyMC151166.3%
AndersonJM141156.7%
PrinceAG141156.7%

Thus saving me the ire of the Indian blogging mafia. Surprisingly, Clive Lloyd almost made this table at 10.0%. Note the high position of potential night-watchmen Anderson and Russell.


Finally, there is a perception that Michael Clarke ought to be in these lists on the negative side. Perception is easily influenced by specific events. In this case, Clakre is no worse than most, being dismissed 4 times in 23 (or 17.4%) of the time when set, and 3 in 11 when not (27.3%). What mattered, is that those four times came in important games, twice in the 2005 Ashes at crucial times in games that were lost; again crucially, in a loss to India in Mohali in 2008; and once in 2009 in the draw in Cardiff. Like scoring runs, sometimes context counts.

Cricket - Analysis 21st November, 2010 14:18:29   [#] [4 comments] 

Ratings - 19th November 2010
Russell Degnan

Recently completed matches

2nd TestIndiavNew Zealand
Pre-rating1209.18923.34
Form+1.26-6.13
Expected MarginIndia by 193 runs
Actual MarginMatch drawn
Post-rating1205.31929.49

Another performance full of grit from New Zealand who once again drew on the back of 225 from newly promoted opener McCullum and contributions from Guptill, McIntosh and Williamson. India were never far from winning, but couldn't push through when it counted. While they will rue the absence of Zaheer Khan in the second innings, their bowling ought to be strong enough to roll over a New Zealand line-up that is both inexperienced and limited.

While India ought to be playing better, given their exalted ranking, New Zealand themselves will lament letting Harbajan Singh escape for a second series century, and a substantial lead, when they were well placed to set a difficult last day target. Vettori was the pick of the bowlers, but needs better support from his pacemen if they are to push for a victory in the final test. Either way, they ought to be pleased with their efforts to date, and the future of a batting lineup that has acquitted itself better than the ageing Australian one that toured India a month ago.

1st TestSri LankavWest Indies
Pre-rating1112.21918.16
Form-14.19-11.14
Expected MarginSri Lanka by 147 runs
Actual MarginMatch drawn
Post-rating1104.89922.03

The third of three drawn tests in the week although the second was rather disgracefully ended when both sides ought to have been pushing for victory in the final hour. This one had no chance, as rain on the final two days ruined the West Indian push for victory after Gayle's monumental 333 had given them a chance to enforce the follow-on. Roach and Shillingford took wickets at regular intervals without prompting the collapse they needed to wrap the game up.

That said, the Sri Lankan batsmen put on seven fifties without one going on to a century , while over half the West Indies total was scored by Gayle, whose dismissal occured in the midst of a Mendis inspired collapse of 6/21. While Sri Lanka struggled badly in the test just gone, they still escaped with a draw, and ought, like India, to win the remaining games.


Rankings at 19th November 2010
1.Australia1215.20
2.India1205.31
3.South Africa1192.00
4.England1157.21
5.Sri Lanka1104.89
6.New Zealand929.49
7.West Indies922.03
8.Bangladesh629.55
9.Zimbabwe556.79

10.Ireland556.46
11.Scotland461.60
12.Afghanistan445.10
13.Namibia388.49
14.Kenya338.92
15.U.S.A.296.99
16.Uganda268.44
17.Nepal196.51
18.Netherlands195.69
19.U.A.E.182.53
20.Canada177.51
21.Hong Kong148.65
22.Cayman Is134.24
23.Malaysia123.90
24.Bermuda105.40

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 20th November, 2010 14:57:49   [#] [0 comments] 

A normative assessment of the proposed ICC Test Championship
Russell Degnan

Having been so kind as to mention it, it would be remiss of me not to get to Ducking Beamers' request for my thoughts on the proposed ICC Test Championship. The difficulty, for me, is that I think it could be much much more than it is, which makes me embittered and negative (as previous posts have indicated). Thus here, I will be scrupulously fair, by analyzing it against the aims I set out at the beginning of my manifesto, and the aims of a tournament format, as set out here


Assessment of the ICC reform program

It should be amenable to international expansion

Partial fail. The reduction of the 50 over world cup in favour of qualifiers is potentially an improvement, but it depends on the nature of the qualification process. The expansion of the T20 World Cup is a positive in the same vein, but not near enough, given the increase in playing members. The test championship is too vague to completely assess against this aim. It has no method of adding potential new members, but nor would it be impossible to do so, were the test nations inclined.

All players should have the opportunity to play at the highest level

Total fail. There is no inclination to push forward successful teams, as the basic touring system remains in place. The best chance many of us have of seeing good associate players remains with them moving to a test nation.

It should expand the professional playing base

Hard to say. The ICC is failing in its responsibility to pressure its members to rationalise their T20 domestic leagues. The professional playing base is expanding, as the larger Big Bash league will demonstrate, but not because the ICC addressed the issue.

Games and series should be meaningful

Disappointing. Meaning, to me is addressed through narrative, and narrative is strongest when a team has something to play for in the present, not the future. The difficulties with the test league will be addressed below, but suffice to say, it is very hard to build a narrative over a four year frame, and likely that interest in the championship will only emerge at the very end of qualifying (perhaps only during the English summer immediately preceding the finals) and in the finals themselves.

Marquee (profitable) tours must be preserved

An unqualified success, unsurprisingly.

For each format, there should be some sort of world championship

A success, albeit with a limited definition of "world" to largely mean "the full member nations".

Regional rivalries should be built upon

No change to speak of, although the plan for T20 world cup qualifying is apparently to run it on regional lines, which would be an improvement.

Domestic and international cricket need clearly defined windows

Total fail. And a potentially costly one, if players from the smaller nations continue to refuse central contracts and retire prematurely.


Assessment of the ICC test championship format

You want to minimize luck, such that the best team wins

In qualifying, a great success, in the finals, a total failure. Conditions in a test match can vary markedly, and teams are very inconsistent from game to game (around 200 runs on average). To create a system whereby only semi-finals and a final decides the winner is to put the winner in the hands of fortune (particularly the toss). To also put the final in a single nation, when home advantage tends to equal around 100 runs, is to give England a significant advantage over their rivals.

You want to maximize the number of games that are decisive, such that the teams that progress are never clear.

Fail. The finals are entirely decisive but amount to only 3 games. The preceding 200 or so games that will make up qualifying will only be decisive if at the end of qualifying the following conditions are met:

  • One of the teams playing is on the verge of 4th or 5th
  • The result of that game or series will push them either in or out of the top four.

While a final that follows an Ashes summer might reasonably include both England and Australia, it is just as likely both will be either safely finals bound or eliminated before the series starts. Even were we to find ourselves in a position that the winner would progress to the test championship final, it would be played out within an Ashes series, that lacks nothing for meaning or context.

You want to minimize the number of mismatches between two teams of different standards.

A fail. The future test program has been largely preserved, which does minimize mismatches, because the stronger teams are generally richer, but there will be a large number of pointless games at the tail-end of qualifying when the smaller nations already have no chance of qualifying, but have not been eliminated from playing. There are two ways to reduce mismatches: have stages (the fair way); or be ultra-exclusive (the Cricket Australia way). Needless to say I prefer the former.

You want to maximize efficiency, so that the tournament is not too long

Utter failure. The tournament goes for four full years, but is only interesting for two weeks.

Conclusion

Perhaps I am being too harsh. Tony has already called me a cynic, but it is very hard to see how a four year long qualification process won't be effectively over (for good or ill) except for a small handful of teams (and therefore a very small minority of series) by the final year. The finals are luck driven and biased towards a single home side. Ultimately, a test championship should do two things: conclude with universal acceptance of who is the best side; and provide opportunities for sides of all levels to prove their mettle. As I said in my introduction, it could and should be so much more than it is.

Cricket - Articles 14th November, 2010 12:11:38   [#] [0 comments] 

Ratings - 11th November 2010
Russell Degnan

Recently completed matches

1st TestIndiavNew Zealand
Pre-rating1213.07916.93
Form+12.04-25.27
Expected MarginIndia by 198 runs
Actual MarginMatch drawn
Post-rating1209.18923.34

Future cricket historians will inquire whether the pitch was left uncovered for a luncheon shower on the fourth day as 10 wickets fell in the following two sessions, when just 16 had fallen in the previous ten. If not for a missed runout early on day five (not to mention numerous chances on the first day), New Zealand may well have celebrated a famous victory, but ultimately, India's resilience under pressure (particularly Laxman's) shone through again.

There was some criticism of Dhoni for not setting New Zealand a target. In a three test series with no external context, playing out the draw and counting on their ability to win one or both of the next two games was the sensible option. Their rating (both here and the ICC) will suffer a little, but not near as much as a loss. Of greater concern is the way New Zealand showed up the weaknesses apparent in the games against Australia, both with the ball, and in their dramatic collapse.

New Zealand, meanwhile, come out of this with much to be proud of. Their batting, for some time a serious weakness, looks to have a reasonable spine in Taylor, Ryder and Williamson. Without a more incisive bowling attack - notwithstanding Martin's extraordinary performance on the fourth day - they'll struggle to defeat the top few teams. A more stable batting lineup should at least arrest their alarming ratings decline since the retirement of Fleming et al.


Forthcoming matches

3 TestsSri LankavWest Indies
Pre-rating1112.21918.16
Form-14.19-11.14
Expected MarginSri Lanka by 147 runs

The season goes into full swing now, with only a single day without scheduled test cricket between now and December 8th. The Sri Lankan-West Indies series is probably the most low-key of those going on, neither side having a large media presence, and the Sri Lankan preparations interrupted by their own pointless one-day tour of Australia. Despite ongoing contractual conflicts over the ICC's reluctance to recognise that domestic T20 tournaments are more in demand (and therefore pay better) than regimented whirl-wind tours, the West Indies will be at full strength under their new captain Darren Sammy.

Whether that will translate into a credible performance in one of the hardest places to tour in world cricket is an unknown. Their batting remains weak, their bowling weaker. In the long-term Sri Lanka need to find wickets from somewhere without Murali to turn to, but on recent form, they'll be largely gifted them by the West Indies batsmen, while the Sri Lankan batsmen are sure to bury the West indies under an avalanche of runs.


Rankings at 11th November 2010
1.Australia1215.20
2.India1209.18
3.South Africa1192.00
4.England1157.21
5.Sri Lanka1112.21
6.New Zealand923.34
7.West Indies918.16
8.Bangladesh629.55
9.Zimbabwe556.79

10.Ireland556.46
11.Scotland461.60
12.Afghanistan445.10
13.Namibia388.49
14.Kenya338.92
15.U.S.A.296.99
16.Uganda268.44
17.Nepal196.51
18.Netherlands195.69
19.U.A.E.182.53
20.Canada177.51
21.Hong Kong148.65
22.Cayman Is134.24
23.Malaysia123.90
24.Bermuda105.40

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 11th November, 2010 11:47:51   [#] [2 comments] 

Ratings - 4th November 2010
Russell Degnan

The process of putting the ratings online turned up some transcription errors. The change is minimal, but puts India even closer to Australia.

Forthcoming matches

3 TestsIndiavNew Zealand
Pre-rating1213.07916.93
Form+12.04-25.27
Expected MarginIndia by 198 runs

A gross mismatch. New Zealand are even weaker than their rating suggests, if their mauling by Bangladesh is any indication. They will, as ever, fight hard, but their batting can't possibly hope to post a winning total, nor their bowlers roll India twice except in the most outrageous conditions - in which case, they'll undoubtedly be removed for less. On the other hand, India need a 200 run (9 wicket) victory to pass Australia in the number one slot. Barring the unexpected, that's the number that I'll ultimately be taking an interest in.

Rankings at 4th November 2010
1.Australia1215.20
2.India1213.07
3.South Africa1192.00
4.England1157.21
5.Sri Lanka1112.21
6.West Indies918.16
7.New Zealand916.93
8.Bangladesh629.55
9.Zimbabwe556.79

10.Ireland556.46
11.Scotland461.60
12.Afghanistan445.10
13.Namibia388.49
14.Kenya338.92
15.U.S.A.296.99
16.Uganda268.44
17.Nepal196.51
18.Netherlands195.69
19.U.A.E.182.53
20.Canada177.51
21.Hong Kong148.65
22.Cayman Is134.24
23.Malaysia123.90
24.Bermuda105.40

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 4th November, 2010 12:24:55   [#] [0 comments]