4th Test	India	v	England
Pre-rating	1021.4		1237.8
Form	-21.4		-1.9
Expected Margin	England by 58 runs
Actual Margin	Match Drawn
Post-rating	1023.3		1235.7
Series rating	1086.7		1177.6

An old-fashioned Indian draw. England, batting first, were made to work hard to win the series, on a pitch not suited for fast scoring, they crawled to 330 - Root and Pietersen both making 73 - in a day and a half. India were equally slow, and while they stayed in contention for a win until into the fifth day the game ebbed away with only 23 wickets falling. Kohli's century in partnership wth Dhoni were their only real contributions, and they were over-shadowed by Trott (143) and Bell (116*) who ensured England won the series.

This was one where the ratings turned out to know best; both teams played exactly to their level, given hoem conditions, and England came away with a deserved victory. It was a surprising victory for those who'd watched their troubles in the previous twelve months, or the first test of the series. But once Panesrar (17 wickets @ 26.8) joined Swann (20 wickets @ 24.8) England had the superior spin attack, and with Cook, Pietersen Trott and Prior, much the superior batting lineup. Inda will be pleased by Pujara, who has looked the part every time he has played, but their next best batsman was probably Ashwin - a very good batsman, in my opinion, but not where the runs must stem, if he remains at number 8.

1st Test	Australia	v	Sri Lanka
Pre-rating	1165.8		1037.8
Form	-22.8		-11.4
Expected Margin	Australia by 114 runs
Actual Margin	Australia by 137 runs
Post-rating	1167.0		1033.8

An exciting match, but not because Sri Lanka ever looked competitive. Australia finally got off to a decent start, with Hughes and Warner looking dominant once the new ball aged, and Clarke, Hussey and Wade cashing in before an unusually early declaration. Welegadara took 3 wickets and Kulasakera got some movement, but Sri Lanka remain a pop-gun attack in Australian conditions. They made the Australian bowlers work hard, and Siddle showed he is willing to take up that role, taking 5/54 off 25.3 overs. Starc was expensive, much more Mitch 1.2 than Mitch 2.0 and they let Dilshan and Mathews put on a big partnership that threatened to leave Australia without time to win.

For a while in the third innings, it seemed Australia might have given themselves time to lose, Some ugly dismissals, Clarke's injury and a late collapse left them only 392 runs in front. Herath the main wicket-taker, which might be significant if he can carry that form forward, as he is Sri Lanka's only real threat. Sangakkara gave hints of his last trip to Hobart, but the Sri Lankan run-rate was never high enough, and that allowed Clarke to slowly turn the screws. It took time, almost 120 overs, a lot more hard work from Siddle and some late Starc yorkers, but Australia recorded their first victory of the summer.

That difficulty is what underpins the push for rotation, as all the bowlers have worked hard, and except for Siddle, are either young, vulnerable to injury, or expendable anyway. It is deeply disappointing to read so many attacks on "scence" that show no sign of having read any of what they are actually panning. It is an emerging field, complex, and probabilistic, not certain. It is also constrained by the schedule and match situation, in the absence of free substitutes. I happen to think rotation has only marginal benefits for test matches, to the point that it is not worth using except in extremis. But I have at least read something that supports that view, not just made unwarranted and misinformed attacks based on the incorrect notion that players are being injured more. And while I'd have liked to see Starc playing in Melbourne, neither he nor Hilfenhaus were that impressive in Hobart, and the deserving Jackson Bird has been for some time.

Rankings at 26th December 2012
1.	South Africa	1272.3
2.	England	1235.7
3.	Australia	1167.0
4.	Pakistan	1125.8
5.	Sri Lanka	1033.7
6.	India	1023.3
7.	West Indies	961.4
8.	New Zealand	866.9
9.	Bangladesh	595.2
10.	Zimbabwe	543.7
11.	Ireland	553.3
12.	Afghanistan	522.4
13.	Scotland	444.9
14.	Namibia	425.3
15.	Kenya	297.3
16.	U.A.E.	212.2
17.	Netherlands	208.9
18.	Canada	147.8

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 December, 2012 05:12:04   [#] [0 comments] 

As a short refutation of the on-going nonsense that the last decade has seen a massive increase in injuries, and bowlers of the past were somehow immune, I present this graph:

This shows the percentage of innings by location that had multiple short overs in test matches - a sign that a bowler was injured. Note that Australian rates are both higher than England, peaked in the 1980s, and have been roughly similar since the 1960s - when the schedule settled in. England has exhibited similar rates since the 1970s.

It isn't clear what changed from the 1950s, although the newspapers of the time record frequent injuries. Professionalism and a reduction in the rate of playing through injuries - even if just to finish the over - is a likely cause.

The biggest change comes from the rest of the world, where injuries peaked in the 1990s. Workload is the likely reason - although the graph is per innings played, it will correlate closely to ODI matches (and therefore total playing time). There is probably no better way to show this than a team-by-team comparison. Note both the massive increase in injuries in the Indian team, and the fluctuations of Pakistan and the West Indies, as their playing schedules changed.

Cricket - Analysis 18th December, 2012 10:20:38   [#] [0 comments] 

Responding to Ponting's use of a nightwatchman in Perth, Steve James made an interesting pointless that their value mostly derives from not having to start again the following day. Which raises the interesting question of how large a problem starting is. It is well established that batsmen start very badly - on nought - and then gradually improve up until the seventies, with an odd but not unexpected jump after passing 100. Compared with starting from an overnight score, and using the top 5 as comparison - the figures for the top order are broadly similar - we can see nearly identical graphs right through the first 100 runs after restarting, notwithstanding some random variation.

Except one aspect, which can be seen by zooming in on the first twenty scored. Batsman on a duck are significantly more likely to get out. Yet there would appear to be no good reason for this, except anxiety, as other than on nought batsman set themselves much the same?

By calculating the difference between the average once a batsman passes 20 - around 43 - with the runs lost by being dismissed early we obtain a difference of 6.2 runs for a batsman beginning his innings and 5.2 for one starting again the next morning. This apparent advantage is offset by a loss of 0.7 runs for a number 8 or 9 batsman, but nevertheless ought to gain some advantage for the following batsman. That it apparently doesn't is the why this will be a series, not just one post.

And to further muddy the waters on the first question. The probability of being dismissed on an overnight score shows no such bias for nought with batsmen on one run just as vulnerable. Although again, there are strange patterns of vulnerability when starting from a low score or a middling one that don't appear random.

That is two mysteries then. Why do batsmen play themselves in an identical manner when regardless of time spent at the crease the night before, except for the first run. And why are there large variations in dismissal rates at various points after an overnight score?

Cricket - Analysis 13th December, 2012 23:02:13   [#] [0 comments] 

3rd Test	Australia	v	South Africa
Pre-rating	1180.0		1250.5
Form	+7.5		+25.7
Expected Margin	Australia by 15 runs
Actual Margin	South Africa by 309 runs
Post-rating	1165.8		1272.3
Series rating	1107.7		1313.7

A test reminiscent of Perth 1992/93. There, like here, Australia entered the final test poised on the verge of toppling the number one team, having failed to close a test match in Adelaide - losing then, drawing now. Then Ambrose destroyed Australia, before the batsmen assaulted the Australian bowling - or at least at the time it seemed that way at the time. Here Australia got the first punch in, but after that the script was the same. Steyn is more Marshall than Ambrose but he carries the same menace and fear, and a Perth pitch offering a little bit exposed the soft underbelly of the Australian batting.

I didn't see much of this match, just the highlights, which do scant justice to the efforts of Smith, Amla and de Villiers, nor accurately portray the quality of the Australian attack. Given an opportunity to press the advantage, South Africa managed to produce a higher gear on the second day that Australia couldn't manage throughout the series, and that ultimately decided the series.

In a series dominated by batsmen, Australia will probably be concerned that most of their run-scoring came from Clarke and Hussey, while South Africa's resilience came in large part from the consistency of contributions. Steyn and Morkel headed the wicket-taking, but it was when they took them, rather than how many. South Africa are definitely beatable, but they arent easily beaten, and you cant say the same about their nearest competitors. Their ranking is gradually reflecting the same.

3rd Test	India	v	England
Pre-rating	1030.9		1231.9
Form	-9.3		-18.5
Expected Margin	England by 51 runs
Actual Margin	England by 7 wickets
Post-rating	1021.4		1237.8

Home advantage being extra significant for both sides notwithstanding, England were rated to win this game and they did. It is a measure of how far and how quickly India has fallen that they aren't expected to win at home, even if England remain a good side. This was a much more even performance from the tourists, and a much more worryign performance from the hosts. From Sehwag's comical runout onwards this innings was a mess. Tendulkar held it together but never really looked comfortable doing so, and 316 never looked like enough if England played reasonably.

Naturally Cook scored a century, and a big one, only ended with an unfortunate (and unusual) runout. This innings displayed a dominance of the bowling that is unusual for Cook, without ever going so far as to suggest he was playing shots on anything other than his terms. Ojha was again the only bowler with any penetration, and the second innings was a strangely predictable shambles, only saved by Ashwin - a player almost certainly a better batsman than bowler. The only surprising aspect was that Anderson and Finn were the primary wicket-takers, as they got their line and length right.

India can still draw this series, and there is no reason why they shouldn't. But they need to fix the basics of their game, their running and catching; their energy and intent; their shot selection and basic discipline while bowling. If they can do that, they will at least be competitive. But after more than a year of performances where they have mostly failed in that task, maybe more is required than a gee-up.

3 Tests	Australia	v	Sri Lanka
Pre-rating	1165.8		1037.8
Form	-22.8		-11.4
Expected Margin	Australia by 114 runs

Australia's last visit to Bellerive was something of a disaster, if a greatly entertaining one, but it is hard to see the same happening this time. Sri Lanka have struggled recently; a drawn series at home to New Zealand was the worst of a line of progressively poorer results that have followed the retirements of Murali and Malinga and the ageing of their batting core. The one shining light has been Herath, finally emerging from the shadows. The record of spinners in Australia, from mediocre to great, wrist, finger, left-arm or right, is almost universally terrible. Herath will be very unlikely to buck that trend, and the back-up in pace form is not inspiring.

There is always the outside chance of an Australian collapse and a Sri Lankan master-class, but all the data points to Australia scoring well, if not havily, and Sri Lanka struggling with the bounce and pace of whoever Australia choose to (or are forced to) play. Unsettled is the polite term for Australia's top four, and numerous have been the calls to push Clarke up from where has been scoring prolifically, to a position where has routinely failed. On present form, he probably wouldn't fail, but sorting out a top four from the various contenders would seem a simper strategy. In large part, the half-bowling-not-quite-scoring-runs Watson is the biggest issue, as he hasn't justified a top-order spot, nor really, number six, except as a bowler or some talent, but too few overs. Most likely, those picked will successfully see off the Sri Lankans before setting off another round of criticism when they get to India. In the meantime, let's hope Sri Lanka can be more competitive than their recent record indicates.

Rankings at 12th December 2012
1.	South Africa	1272.3
2.	England	1237.8
3.	Australia	1165.8
4.	Pakistan	1125.8
5.	Sri Lanka	1037.8
6.	India	1021.4
7.	West Indies	961.4
8.	New Zealand	866.9
9.	Bangladesh	595.2
10.	Zimbabwe	543.7
11.	Ireland	553.3
12.	Afghanistan	522.4
13.	Scotland	444.9
14.	Namibia	425.3
15.	Kenya	297.3
16.	U.A.E.	212.2
17.	Netherlands	208.9
18.	Canada	147.8

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 13th December, 2012 00:33:48   [#] [0 comments]