|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ratings - 2nd June 2010
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1st Test | England | v | Bangladesh |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-rating | 1128.82 | 629.33 | |
| Form | +0.57 | +21.86 | |
| Expected Margin | England by 301 runs | ||
| Actual Margin | England by 8 wickets | ||
| Post-rating | 1125.95 | 640.26 | |
A game that, by the score, went almost entirely to script. Bangladesh following on to England's large first innings total, before sneaking past the expected margin to improve their rating again. The English press continues to oscillate between patronising the Bangladeshi players and discussing the implications for the Ashes. Simon Hughes is not guilty of the former when making the point that Shakib's captaincy is too negative. Shakib was equally negative at home as well, but too, perhaps this is unsuprising, given the culture of Bangladeshi batting, a spread field would be a sound tactic; while a kid captain in a team habituated to losing can hardly be expected to judge the moment accurately. As I've stated before, Bangladesh need to play down as well as up, before they'll learn how to win.
In the latter category, the English selectors should be a little concerned. The batting, Trott aside, largely failed; and the bowling struggled to stem the runs, or take wickets when batting conditions were benign. Perhaps years of poor performance mean we under-estimate Bangladesh, and due credit should be given to them, when matching a good English side. There is, suprisingly, quite a few points of interest in game two.
| Rankings at 2nd June 2010 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Australia | 1220.38 |
| 2. | India | 1209.48 |
| 3. | South Africa | 1187.58 |
| 4. | England | 1125.95 |
| 5. | Sri Lanka | 1103.96 |
| 6. | Pakistan | 1073.88 |
| 7. | West Indies | 927.04 |
| 8. | New Zealand | 917.91 |
| 9. | Bangladesh | 640.26 |
| 10. | Zimbabwe | 556.79 |
| 11. | Ireland | 547.06 |
| 12. | Scotland | 464.97 |
| 13. | Namibia | 378.09 |
| 14. | Afghanistan | 362.06 |
| 15. | Kenya | 351.46 |
| 16. | U.S.A. | 296.99 |
| 17. | Uganda | 280.48 |
| 18. | Netherlands | 219.46 |
| 19. | Nepal | 196.51 |
| 20. | Canada | 177.28 |
| 21. | U.A.E. | 161.47 |
| 22. | Hong Kong | 148.65 |
| 23. | Bermuda | 138.61 |
| 24. | Cayman Is | 134.24 |
| 25. | Malaysia | 123.90 |
Shaded teams have played fewer than 2 games per season. Non-test team ratings are not comparable to test ratings as they don't play each other.
Cricket - Ratings - Test 2nd June, 2010 14:10:37 [#]
Comments
Ratings - 2nd June 2010
I think it was a combination of some good batting and average bowling by England.
If yoiu notice Tamim, M'ullah,Sakib,Junaid and Rahim all average around 30 or more than 30. I don't think that was the case before as most were averaging in the 20's.
Anyway I have blogrollled you.
greyblazer 3rd June, 2010 21:41:43
Ratings - 2nd June 2010
thanks greyblazer. In some ways the bowling was more of a surprise than the batting. Not that the bowling was great, but Trott and Strauss aside, the English batsmen struggled a bit. As I said, it will be interesting to see how they go at Old Trafford, particularly if there is some turn in it for their spinners.
Russ 4th June, 2010 19:17:29
Ratings - 2nd June 2010
I'm glad you came to my blog otherwise I'd have never come across yours. Since I'm a lazy bum could you fill me in on your ratings system?
Mahek 7th June, 2010 16:05:44
