I have updated the Test Ladder through the start of the 2010 Northern Hemisphere season.
Two changes occurred:
Australia rose to the top of the ladder owing to the win over New Zealand in New Zealand. (A drawn or lost series would have seen India pass Australia to claim second place.) England's draw against South Africa weighed too heavily in the face of Australian successes against weaker teams.
New Zealand, despite the loss at home, still managed to accumulate enough points to get past the makeshift West Indies' elevens beaten by Bangladesh (hence the unlikely high placing of the weakest of Test sides) and Australia.
England currently look likely to head into the Ashes series in top spot again, though.
Showing posts with label New Zealand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Zealand. Show all posts
Monday, 23 August 2010
Sunday, 29 March 2009
No Loss
After four days, the Second Test between New Zealand and India is headed for a draw. Using Runs/Wicket State data, the odds of either side losing are nil.
The fascination, for me, of cricket matches is the question of balance. There is balance between batsmen and bowlers both within the sides and as matched against the opponents. There are also points at which the match itself balances between winning and losing. In this specific case, the question that should haunt us all is whether New Zealand left it too late to declare. I think they did. When they were 415/5 they had nearly a 60 per cent chance of winning the match. They did, however, have a small chance of losing. When the Black Caps reached 605/7, that chance of losing had vanished. I'm not sure why they hung on for two more wickets after that, but those two fell so quickly I don't think they made much difference to the outcome.
But, think of it this way—India is one of the Test sides that is best equipped for batting itself back into a match. The New Zealand attack is nothing special. The balance there suggests that if you're playing the Test 'by the book', your first mission is to bat yourself into a position where you can't lose. The gamble you take is that your bowlers can draw on that reserve of will sometimes needed to shatter the opposition. The Black Caps came close, but I think having to bowl twice in a row took too much out of their attack.
So maybe the point of balance in this match came after India's first innings. A tired New Zealand attack was sent out against a top batting side to get ten more wickets. How realistic was that? Should the follow-on have been enforced? There's something for you to argue about.
The fascination, for me, of cricket matches is the question of balance. There is balance between batsmen and bowlers both within the sides and as matched against the opponents. There are also points at which the match itself balances between winning and losing. In this specific case, the question that should haunt us all is whether New Zealand left it too late to declare. I think they did. When they were 415/5 they had nearly a 60 per cent chance of winning the match. They did, however, have a small chance of losing. When the Black Caps reached 605/7, that chance of losing had vanished. I'm not sure why they hung on for two more wickets after that, but those two fell so quickly I don't think they made much difference to the outcome.
But, think of it this way—India is one of the Test sides that is best equipped for batting itself back into a match. The New Zealand attack is nothing special. The balance there suggests that if you're playing the Test 'by the book', your first mission is to bat yourself into a position where you can't lose. The gamble you take is that your bowlers can draw on that reserve of will sometimes needed to shatter the opposition. The Black Caps came close, but I think having to bowl twice in a row took too much out of their attack.
So maybe the point of balance in this match came after India's first innings. A tired New Zealand attack was sent out against a top batting side to get ten more wickets. How realistic was that? Should the follow-on have been enforced? There's something for you to argue about.
Friday, 27 March 2009
New Zealand in Charge!
Now's the time to deploy that headline. I'm not too fond of today's effort, either, about a relentless New Zealand. Rather, I wonder about this curious fact: when Franklin was out the Black Caps' chances of winning were actually higher than at the end of the innings.
New Zealand certainly were the most 'sabermetric' of sides, it seemed back when I started analysing cricket in this way. They surely know, if any side does, that there is a chance of diminishing returns if one keeps batting for runs in the first innings. Yet they have done exactly this in a series where they are one match down. As things turned out, their chances of winning are exactly 50/50 by my reckoning. What they have successfully done is put any chance of losing out of the picture.
The Indians are, to my mind, still the same group that was once (and may still be) the best batting side in the world. You have to respect that, but I wonder if New Zealand took it too far. It's a question of how much confidence they have in their attack, I suspect.
At this stage, though, they are looking smarter than me.
India opened with a .322 success rate, against a New Zealand one of .500.
The first wicket (Gambhir-Sehwag) advanced them to .430 for a gain of .108
The second wicket (Gambhir-Dravid) regressed them to .314 for a -.116.
The third wicket (Dravid-Sharma) regressed them .067 for a -.247.
CLARIFICATION: A better writer would have made it more clear that the Success Rate reflects the chance to win the match, and thus excludes draws. So the Black caps had a 50 per cent chance of winning and a 50 per cent chance of losing when I wrote the above, but no chance of losing. [z0345]
New Zealand certainly were the most 'sabermetric' of sides, it seemed back when I started analysing cricket in this way. They surely know, if any side does, that there is a chance of diminishing returns if one keeps batting for runs in the first innings. Yet they have done exactly this in a series where they are one match down. As things turned out, their chances of winning are exactly 50/50 by my reckoning. What they have successfully done is put any chance of losing out of the picture.
The Indians are, to my mind, still the same group that was once (and may still be) the best batting side in the world. You have to respect that, but I wonder if New Zealand took it too far. It's a question of how much confidence they have in their attack, I suspect.
At this stage, though, they are looking smarter than me.
India opened with a .322 success rate, against a New Zealand one of .500.
The first wicket (Gambhir-Sehwag) advanced them to .430 for a gain of .108
The second wicket (Gambhir-Dravid) regressed them to .314 for a -.116.
The third wicket (Dravid-Sharma) regressed them .067 for a -.247.
CLARIFICATION: A better writer would have made it more clear that the Success Rate reflects the chance to win the match, and thus excludes draws. So the Black caps had a 50 per cent chance of winning and a 50 per cent chance of losing when I wrote the above, but no chance of losing. [z0345]
Thursday, 26 March 2009
New Zealand in Charge?
That's what the headline on CricInfo's home page says—that New Zealand are in charge of the Second Test against India. Well, as my little series about Runs/Wicket States showed, it's possible to get some sort of measure of that.
The question as I left was whether we can really use a team's first innings to draw much of a conclusion about the match state. I'm not sure they are entirely useful even when a team might find itself at 23/3. At this stage there are just too many variables of what could happen—like a fourth-wicket partnership of 271!
However, I'd say that after the first wicket New Zealand's chance of success was .278, after the second it stood at .074. The third wicket wasn't so catastrophic, taking the success chance down to .061. The key wicket to fall, from India's point of view, was the second. That one put them in control, and they merely needed to keep up the pressure by taking wickets for an average of around 25 runs apiece.
They didn't. Ryder and Taylor increased New Zealand's chances of winning to .434. That's 37 per cent, in case you hadn't worked that out. Wow! D--n good stuff.
However, are New Zealand in charge? I don't think so, not yet at least. 'Taylor and Ryder save sinking ship' is how I would have put it. They might, however, fancy their chances. This match didn't happen all that long ago, and they are already ahead of the fourth-wicket score.
CORRECTION (27 Mar 2009): I did not apply the correct formula for the success rate. The fall of the Black Caps' first wicket took their success chances down from .331 (the percentage of all Test matches turning into wins for the opening batting side before a single ball is bowled) to .321. The second wicket took the chance down to .215, and the third down to a round .100. Taylor and Ryder did still add 37 per cent, though, taking the rate up to .473.
My figures for the Cape Town test were also a bit out, but as they were for illustrative purposes, I'll not correct them at this time.
The question as I left was whether we can really use a team's first innings to draw much of a conclusion about the match state. I'm not sure they are entirely useful even when a team might find itself at 23/3. At this stage there are just too many variables of what could happen—like a fourth-wicket partnership of 271!
However, I'd say that after the first wicket New Zealand's chance of success was .278, after the second it stood at .074. The third wicket wasn't so catastrophic, taking the success chance down to .061. The key wicket to fall, from India's point of view, was the second. That one put them in control, and they merely needed to keep up the pressure by taking wickets for an average of around 25 runs apiece.
They didn't. Ryder and Taylor increased New Zealand's chances of winning to .434. That's 37 per cent, in case you hadn't worked that out. Wow! D--n good stuff.
However, are New Zealand in charge? I don't think so, not yet at least. 'Taylor and Ryder save sinking ship' is how I would have put it. They might, however, fancy their chances. This match didn't happen all that long ago, and they are already ahead of the fourth-wicket score.
CORRECTION (27 Mar 2009): I did not apply the correct formula for the success rate. The fall of the Black Caps' first wicket took their success chances down from .331 (the percentage of all Test matches turning into wins for the opening batting side before a single ball is bowled) to .321. The second wicket took the chance down to .215, and the third down to a round .100. Taylor and Ryder did still add 37 per cent, though, taking the rate up to .473.
My figures for the Cape Town test were also a bit out, but as they were for illustrative purposes, I'll not correct them at this time.
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Bat or Ball?
My Level 1 Series Scores are calculated 'out of context'. Level 2 scores attempt to adjust the values of wickets taken and runs scored according to the average standard of the series. Level 1 scores have an element of adjustment, but only to runs scored. Thus, the ratio of total points allocated to runs scored will offer some indication of whether a series was dominated by the batsmen or the bowlers. A high ratio of runs scored means the batting was dominant, a lower one the bowling.
Here are the ratios for the 'Christmas Tests', which I have been analysing over the last week or so:
I'm surprised that the New Zealand series with West Indies was more 'bat' than the Australia vs South Africa showdown.
Here are the ratios for the 'Christmas Tests', which I have been analysing over the last week or so:
Ban v SrL 1.22
NZl v WIn 1.18
Aus v RSA 1.16
I'm surprised that the New Zealand series with West Indies was more 'bat' than the Australia vs South Africa showdown.
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
New Zealand vs West Indies Tests Reviewed: Batting
Series Scores first:
The traditional Black Cap strategy for success involves someone like McCullum coming out and blasting the ball over the boundaries for a fifty in short time. Prior to that, they have three or four batsmen come in who just block and block and block, not worrying about the run rate. The gives the blaster the chance to take advantage of an older ball and tired bowlers. Unfortunately, How couldn't quite pull off his planned role, while Ross Taylor didn't defend his wicket well enough, either. Taylor probably wasn't supposed to defend, but How's short stays at the crease left him exposed. They might do better to switch Ryder and Taylor, but given Ryder's temperament that might not be such a good idea, either. Vettori did well. A nought score for a bowler puts him in all-rounder territory. McCullum needs to get rid of that minus.
You might think a 2 from a wicketkeeper like McCullum is not a good score, but look at Ramdin! He's no different to a rabbit coming in at 11 nowadays. While Gayle is man of the series, West Indies' supporters will be looking at Sarwan and thinking about what might have been. His failures were quite disturbing for someone who projects as well as he does. If he gets back on track, it could be 'watch out England'. Chattergoon and Marshall are interchangeable as batsmen, and not really good enough on this showing. However, Marshall's done good work in the field. Plus, he's young, and West Indies' pathetic development programme means he's probably better off getting Test time. I might, just might, consider moving Marshall down the order a little bit. He shows a tendency to want to blast the ball.
On the evidence of this series, I see a rosier future for West Indies than New Zealand at the Test level. Which is sad, because Vettori is an impressive captain, and the Black Caps are the Thinking Fan's Side.
Gayle (WIn) 37
Chanderpaul (WIn) 20
Ryder (NZl) 20
McIntosh (NZl) 14
Nash (WIn) 13
Flynn (NZl) 12
Taylor (WIn) 8
Vettori (NZl) 0
McCullum (NZl) - 2
Gillespie (NZl) - 2
Taylor (NZl) - 4
Patel (NZl) - 5
How (NZl) - 5
Baker (WIn) - 5
Chattergoon (WIn) - 6
Marshall (WIn) - 7
Benn (WIn) - 9
O'Brien (NZl) - 9
Mills (NZl) -10
Powell (WIn) -10
Edwards (WIn) -12
Sarwan (WIn) -12
Ramdin (WIn) -12
Franklin (NZl) -13
The traditional Black Cap strategy for success involves someone like McCullum coming out and blasting the ball over the boundaries for a fifty in short time. Prior to that, they have three or four batsmen come in who just block and block and block, not worrying about the run rate. The gives the blaster the chance to take advantage of an older ball and tired bowlers. Unfortunately, How couldn't quite pull off his planned role, while Ross Taylor didn't defend his wicket well enough, either. Taylor probably wasn't supposed to defend, but How's short stays at the crease left him exposed. They might do better to switch Ryder and Taylor, but given Ryder's temperament that might not be such a good idea, either. Vettori did well. A nought score for a bowler puts him in all-rounder territory. McCullum needs to get rid of that minus.
You might think a 2 from a wicketkeeper like McCullum is not a good score, but look at Ramdin! He's no different to a rabbit coming in at 11 nowadays. While Gayle is man of the series, West Indies' supporters will be looking at Sarwan and thinking about what might have been. His failures were quite disturbing for someone who projects as well as he does. If he gets back on track, it could be 'watch out England'. Chattergoon and Marshall are interchangeable as batsmen, and not really good enough on this showing. However, Marshall's done good work in the field. Plus, he's young, and West Indies' pathetic development programme means he's probably better off getting Test time. I might, just might, consider moving Marshall down the order a little bit. He shows a tendency to want to blast the ball.
On the evidence of this series, I see a rosier future for West Indies than New Zealand at the Test level. Which is sad, because Vettori is an impressive captain, and the Black Caps are the Thinking Fan's Side.
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
New Zealand vs West Indies Tests Reviewed: Bowling
Bowlers ranked by series scores
Edwards had a good tour. He was a bit expensive, but took wickets at an impressive rate. Powell was a bit better at preventing runs, but more than a bit worse at taking wickets. However, if he can improve even a little bit on taking wickets, without getting worse at preventing runs, he would give West Indies a very good pair of bowlers, especially with Taylor also flirting with the 'at least useful' category. Nash offered more support, but it's hard to make too much of such a short series, in the light of his relative lack of international experience. The point being that given the immense frailty of the West Indies' batting order, they desperately need a trio of average-or-better wicket takers in order to have any chance in Test matches.
New Zealand makes a case for bowling two spinners against the West Indies. Vettori and Patel amassed 27 points, which is equivalent to one exceptional bowler. England should take note, especially since there is a history of useful spin bowling on West Indies' tracks. Apart from that, you really have to be concerned at the state of New Zealand's bowling. Against a lineup of two batsmen and nine also-rans, their pace options scored all of -21. It could be that West Indies are just that much better against pace - more food for English thoughts - but it could also be that New Zealand pace bowlers are not very good. Although the Black Caps survived a drop this series, on the evidence of the bowling I don't fancy their long-term ability to keep above the Maroon Caps.
Edwards (WIn) 20
Vettori (NZl) 19
O'Brien (NZl) 10
Patel (NZl) 8
Powell (WIn) 1
Gayle (WIn) 1
Ryder (NZl) - 1
Nash (WIn) - 3
Mills (NZl) - 4
Taylor (WIn) - 4
Benn (WIn) -10
Franklin (NZl) -11
Baker (WIn) -12
Gillespie (NZl) -15
Edwards had a good tour. He was a bit expensive, but took wickets at an impressive rate. Powell was a bit better at preventing runs, but more than a bit worse at taking wickets. However, if he can improve even a little bit on taking wickets, without getting worse at preventing runs, he would give West Indies a very good pair of bowlers, especially with Taylor also flirting with the 'at least useful' category. Nash offered more support, but it's hard to make too much of such a short series, in the light of his relative lack of international experience. The point being that given the immense frailty of the West Indies' batting order, they desperately need a trio of average-or-better wicket takers in order to have any chance in Test matches.
New Zealand makes a case for bowling two spinners against the West Indies. Vettori and Patel amassed 27 points, which is equivalent to one exceptional bowler. England should take note, especially since there is a history of useful spin bowling on West Indies' tracks. Apart from that, you really have to be concerned at the state of New Zealand's bowling. Against a lineup of two batsmen and nine also-rans, their pace options scored all of -21. It could be that West Indies are just that much better against pace - more food for English thoughts - but it could also be that New Zealand pace bowlers are not very good. Although the Black Caps survived a drop this series, on the evidence of the bowling I don't fancy their long-term ability to keep above the Maroon Caps.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
