Recent Results

I-Cup Match	Canada	v	Afghanistan
Pre-rating	177.51		484.71
Form	-23.05		+105.85
Expected Margin	Afghanistan by 104 runs
Actual Margin	Afghanistan by 9 wickets
Post-rating	164.19		518.44

Canada would have had mixed feelings at the end of Afghanistan's first innings. 293 is no better than par score, but should have been 50 runs fewer. Twelve overs later they would have been decidedly morose, as Hamid Hassan ripped out 4 wickets to have them 21/4. Day 2 was washed out and on return, Hassan bowled another 15 consecutive overs across two sessions, taking the first 7 wickets to fall, before Canada staged a revival of sorts, making 130. Following on, a now injured Hassan bowled half-pace but still took the first three wickets to finish with 10/85 off 27 overs. Canada worked hard to avoid the innings defeat, but they would be no recovery from that position and Afghanistan eased to a 9 wicket victory on the fourth day.

1st Test	Zimbabwe	v	Bangladesh
Pre-rating	546.63		618.26
Form	-36.93		+18.12
Expected Margin	Bangladesh by 14 runs
Actual Margin	Zimbabwe by 130 runs
Post-rating	552.33		617.01

The universal consensus on this match was that Zimbabwe were much better than expected. How good that actually correlates to is hard to determine. The tour from Pakistan won't necessarily tell us much, because noone is sure how good Pakistan is - though they ought to win easily. The tour from New Zealand will make things clearer. What was certain is that they were too good for Bangladesh. What is also certain is that they played with a verve missing from better test sides, batting sensibly and long (223 overs); attacking the Bangladeshi bowling to set up a generous and attacking declaration; and bowling with purpose, if a little impatience.

Their batting remains a weakness, as their sudden first innings collapse demonstrated, although both Taylor and Masakadza made tons, and Sibanda was worthy of one. Their bowling, however, has a lot of potential, particularly Vitori, a front-on left-armer who consistently swung the ball, and Jarvis, with a McGrath like action, sans his height, athleticism and relentless accuracy. The supporting bowlers, particularly Price are steady and controlling, letting Bangladesh gift their wickets, which they happily did.

Bangladesh need to sit down and assess this performance, as their batting is good enough to make big scores, with a litle patience. Their bowling, particular their seamers were close to useless, and while Shakib is steady and capable, Taylor and Taibu demonstrated that a steady head on a good pitch is more than enough to counter an attack that looked bereft of ideas. They will probably win the ODIs with their greater attacking strength, but if they want to be taken seriously as a cricketing nation, they need to win games like this.

Rankings at 10th August 2011
1.	England	1280.06
2.	South Africa	1180.15
3.	India	1164.66
4.	Australia	1125.02
5.	Sri Lanka	1070.23
6.	West Indies	922.70
7.	New Zealand	885.38
8.	Bangladesh	617.01
9.	Zimbabwe	552.33
10.	Ireland	556.46
11.	Afghanistan	518.44
12.	Scotland	436.06
13.	Namibia	400.40
14.	Kenya	338.92
15.	U.S.A.	296.99
16.	Uganda	268.44
17.	U.A.E.	204.63
18.	Netherlands	202.55
19.	Nepal	196.51
20.	Canada	164.19
21.	Hong Kong	148.65
22.	Cayman Is	134.24
23.	Malaysia	123.90
24.	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 10th August, 2011 01:25:53   [#] 

Comments

Ratings - 10th August 2011
How did Zimbabwe's rating improve by 6 points while Bangladesh's rating drop by just 1? Also, you've written 552.33 in one place & 553.33 in the other. I'm confused as hell :)
Mahek  18th August, 2011 22:59:42  

Ratings - 10th August 2011
Thanks, corrected the typo.

Zimbabwe haven't played in forever. Intuitively it should make sense that the faith we have in Bangladesh's rating is much higher than Zimbabwe's, so it makes sense to assume the difference between expected and actual result was because Zimbabwe's rating was wrong, not Bangladesh's. (Weights were 1.13 and 5.31). Hence Zimbabwe's changes more.
Russ  18th August, 2011 23:56:47