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 South Africa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Africa. Show all posts
Monday, 23 August 2010
Monday, 8 February 2010
2010 Nagpur Test, India vs South Africa #2
My model seems to have been right! I haven't actually finished fiddling with it, and now I'm not sure I will bother to get it done for this test.
However, I was looking at the scorecard after close of play, and I wondered about the difference between the standard deviations of the two sides' first innings.
Including extras, the standard deviation for the South Africans was 89.73. That for the Indians was 32.51. Does this have any meaning?
It may indicate that Nagpur's wicket is treacherous, at least for this test. If you can get in, it's possible for an exceptional batsman to put up a decent score, but otherwise you're scrabbling for runs and in danger of losing a wicket at any moment. If that's the case, it makes this is a result pitch, and future tourists should take note.
However, I was looking at the scorecard after close of play, and I wondered about the difference between the standard deviations of the two sides' first innings.
Including extras, the standard deviation for the South Africans was 89.73. That for the Indians was 32.51. Does this have any meaning?
It may indicate that Nagpur's wicket is treacherous, at least for this test. If you can get in, it's possible for an exceptional batsman to put up a decent score, but otherwise you're scrabbling for runs and in danger of losing a wicket at any moment. If that's the case, it makes this is a result pitch, and future tourists should take note.
Sunday, 7 February 2010
2010 Nagpur Test, India vs South Africa (Win Expectancy)
I tuned into the play until lunch yesterday, and I managed to catch all the wicket-taking excitement.
I left off mostly talking about win expectancies. In this case, one needs to tinker with the model a little, since the situation is rather unique. Here's how significant the first wickets were.
After Prince was the victim of an umpiring mistake, South Africa had boosted their chances of winning by +.007. (There's a joke there, somewhere.)
Smith, however, 'popped out', as they say in baseball, to the wicketkeeper, and reduced the chance to 19 per cent, a loss of -15.
Kallis and Amlah set up 'shot' and hey-ho, took South Africa's chances of winning to 100 per cent. Except I don't believe that. The model has spit out a 'porky'. I'll come back and report after I've done a bit of figuring. I think I know how to handle this.
Meanwhile, readers with longer memories might like to recall this match.
I left off mostly talking about win expectancies. In this case, one needs to tinker with the model a little, since the situation is rather unique. Here's how significant the first wickets were.
After Prince was the victim of an umpiring mistake, South Africa had boosted their chances of winning by +.007. (There's a joke there, somewhere.)
Smith, however, 'popped out', as they say in baseball, to the wicketkeeper, and reduced the chance to 19 per cent, a loss of -15.
Kallis and Amlah set up 'shot' and hey-ho, took South Africa's chances of winning to 100 per cent. Except I don't believe that. The model has spit out a 'porky'. I'll come back and report after I've done a bit of figuring. I think I know how to handle this.
Meanwhile, readers with longer memories might like to recall this match.
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Runs/Wickets State
Following on from yesterday's post, about Base/Out States in baseball, I thought I'd take a snapshot of the current Test Match, which will perhaps explain more plainly the direction that I'm going in.
When I checked the South Africa v Australia score, at tea Australia were 231/6. Teams at 231/6 in the third innings of the match have a cumulative record of 243 wins, 330 losses and 235 draws. That's a success rate of .301, which tells you that, even not knowing South Africa scored 651 runs, that Australia weren't in good shape to win the match.
At 365/6, the current score, the success rate is .383, still not good, but better, an improvement of .082. Thus, we can calculate that this current stand by McDonald and Johnson has increased the Australian chances of success.
When I checked the South Africa v Australia score, at tea Australia were 231/6. Teams at 231/6 in the third innings of the match have a cumulative record of 243 wins, 330 losses and 235 draws. That's a success rate of .301, which tells you that, even not knowing South Africa scored 651 runs, that Australia weren't in good shape to win the match.
At 365/6, the current score, the success rate is .383, still not good, but better, an improvement of .082. Thus, we can calculate that this current stand by McDonald and Johnson has increased the Australian chances of success.
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.
Monday, 19 January 2009
Australia vs South Africa Tests Reviewed: Bowling
I'll start with the Series Scores for the bowlers, then I'll supply the analysis.
Overall, Australia had an economy of 2.84 for the series. That's very good. Unfortunately, they had strike rate of 90.05. That's exceedingly poor. One of my benchmark series for poor performance is West Indies' tour of Australia in 2005/6. West Indies' strike rate of 86.27 left them hopelessly outclassed. That Australia managed to stay in this series at all is a testament to their batting strength. You don't win Tests by holding the runs down; you win them by taking wickets.
That's why Steyn is at the top of this list. He was expensive, with an economy of 3.59 (which wouldn't win a team many Test series) but a strike rate of 43.78. He carried the South African bowling attack almost single-handed. He was the Man of the Series by any estimation, and won it for the Proteas. If he can't repeat his magic on Australia's return tour, I can't see how the South Africans can win. Overall, their strike rate didn't even get past the notional minimum needed for a series victory of 65. They finished on 66.41. As the first-level Series' Scores show, this series was dominated by the batsmen.
While South Africa can carry Steyn around on their shoulders, Australians will be pushing Brett Lee and Jason Krejza into the dunce's corner. Between them they probably cost Australia the series. Those are horrific scores for men bowling 120 overs between them. (That's 20 an innings over three tests - the equivalent of one front-line bowler at -48.) While the Australians probably could have survived the poor batting of Hayden and Hussey (the latter of whom actually helped out with the ball), there was just nowhere to hide Lee and Krejza (plus Clarke, who goes from 28 with the bat to 18 overall, thanks to some dreadful bowling).
Let's conclude by putting Australia's chances in perspective. In the entire history of Test cricket, how many times do you think a team with a stingy economy of 2.84, but a bowling average of between 42.06 and 43.05 (indicating a lack of penetration), has won a Test match? There have been 42 matches involving such a team.
Try once.
Steyn (RSA) 30
Johnson (Aus) 29
Siddle (Aus) 20
McDonald (Aus) 6
Duminy (RSA) 3
Hussey (Aus) 2
Harris (RSA) 1
Kallis (RSA) 1
Symonds (Aus) - 3
Morkel (RSA) - 4
Hauritz (Aus) - 7
Bollinger (Aus) - 7
Clarke (Aus) - 10
Ntini (RSA) - 12
Krejza (Aus) - 21
Lee (Aus) - 27
Overall, Australia had an economy of 2.84 for the series. That's very good. Unfortunately, they had strike rate of 90.05. That's exceedingly poor. One of my benchmark series for poor performance is West Indies' tour of Australia in 2005/6. West Indies' strike rate of 86.27 left them hopelessly outclassed. That Australia managed to stay in this series at all is a testament to their batting strength. You don't win Tests by holding the runs down; you win them by taking wickets.
That's why Steyn is at the top of this list. He was expensive, with an economy of 3.59 (which wouldn't win a team many Test series) but a strike rate of 43.78. He carried the South African bowling attack almost single-handed. He was the Man of the Series by any estimation, and won it for the Proteas. If he can't repeat his magic on Australia's return tour, I can't see how the South Africans can win. Overall, their strike rate didn't even get past the notional minimum needed for a series victory of 65. They finished on 66.41. As the first-level Series' Scores show, this series was dominated by the batsmen.
While South Africa can carry Steyn around on their shoulders, Australians will be pushing Brett Lee and Jason Krejza into the dunce's corner. Between them they probably cost Australia the series. Those are horrific scores for men bowling 120 overs between them. (That's 20 an innings over three tests - the equivalent of one front-line bowler at -48.) While the Australians probably could have survived the poor batting of Hayden and Hussey (the latter of whom actually helped out with the ball), there was just nowhere to hide Lee and Krejza (plus Clarke, who goes from 28 with the bat to 18 overall, thanks to some dreadful bowling).
Let's conclude by putting Australia's chances in perspective. In the entire history of Test cricket, how many times do you think a team with a stingy economy of 2.84, but a bowling average of between 42.06 and 43.05 (indicating a lack of penetration), has won a Test match? There have been 42 matches involving such a team.
Try once.
Australia vs South Africa Tests Reviewed: Batting
Back on the old site, I developed a little fun stat, originally designed just for bowlers, called the 'match score'. I've been tinkering with it ever since, and one day I saw how you could usefully use it to compare batsmen and bowlers across series. It's been through a few refinements. As things stand, the 'second-level' series score for batsmen sums to zero. (That is, the sum of both teams series scores equals zero.) The 'second-level' series score for bowlers usually sums to zero, but not always. (I'm still trying to solve that one.) The 'first-level' scores just sum to a big number; the batsmen's score does a better job of comparing players across series than a simple tally of runs. The bowler's score is better at telling you about run prevention than about winning. The really neat thing about it all is that you can directly compare batsmen and bowlers, and work out which players were most important to their sides. Second Level scores are more precise than First Level ones in measuring that contribution, so I prefer to work with them.
Without further ado, here's the Second Level series' scores for batsmen, in order.
Under this system a par score would be equal to zero. So a small negative score is, after a fashion, useful. A recognized batsman really should have a minimum score of 10. A tailender doing -5 or better is an asset. You'd want an all-rounder to be above zero, or not much below it.
You can see here how critical Hussey's non-performance was, more so than Hayden's. Together, these two probably killed Australia's chances. (And while we're at it, Mr McKenzie needs to buck up.) We'll look at the bowling next, and another key reason for the South African series win.
Without further ado, here's the Second Level series' scores for batsmen, in order.
Clarke (Aus) 28
Smith (RSA) 20
Katich (Aus) 15
Ponting (Aus) 14
Duminy (RSA) 13
de Villiers (RSA) 12
Amla (RSA) 10
Haddin (Aus) 10
Kallis (RSA) 4
Krejza (Aus) - 1
Boucher (RSA) - 1
Steyn (RSA) - 2
Symonds (Aus) - 2
Johnson (Aus) - 3
McDonald (Aus) - 3
Bollinger (Aus) - 5
Hauritz (Aus) - 6
Lee (Aus) -10
Morkel (RSA) -11
Hayden (Aus) -12
McKenzie (RSA) -12
Harris (RSA) -13
Siddle (Aus) -14
Ntini (RSA) -15
Hussey (Aus) -17
Under this system a par score would be equal to zero. So a small negative score is, after a fashion, useful. A recognized batsman really should have a minimum score of 10. A tailender doing -5 or better is an asset. You'd want an all-rounder to be above zero, or not much below it.
You can see here how critical Hussey's non-performance was, more so than Hayden's. Together, these two probably killed Australia's chances. (And while we're at it, Mr McKenzie needs to buck up.) We'll look at the bowling next, and another key reason for the South African series win.
Sunday, 28 December 2008
How Good Might JP Duminy Be?
Duminy's heroic stand for 166 in Melbourne yesterday, following his earlier heroics in Perth, had me wondering who might have amassed between 50 and 200 runs in a Test match debut. Is Duminy laying down a marker to be a great batsman?
Now, I'm not interested in the score, because my explorations of what wins cricket matches suggests to me that the kind of batsmen one wants are those who are consistently hard to get out, not necessarily 'Sydney or the Bush' merchants who rack up centuries now and then. Bowlers who take wickets at a high rate and batsmen who don't get out are the players who keep a side in the match. So instead of ranking people by score, I used CricInfo StatsGuru to rank them by balls faced. Note that I was only interested in debutants whose side batted second, in order to reduce the consideration set to as close a parallel as possible to Duminy.
Focusing on all those players within one standard deviation of Duminy's strike rate, we get a broad mix of talent, ranging from Tapash Baisya of Bangladesh, a bowler whose innings average doesn't even top ten*, to the late Taslim Arif, who managed to average just over 50 in a mere six Test matches. (A wicketkeeper, he gave way to Wasim Bari. You'd think they'd still have wanted his bat in the order somewhere.) Meanwhile, there's a couple of significant batsmen for whom we don't have complete Balls Faced statistics, in Lloyd and Gavaskar, and a couple of interesting might-have-beens in Amaranth and Baichan.
Overall, the standard deviation shortlist averages 34.60. The median belongs to Chandika Hathurusinga, at 28.95. It's too early to say more than Duminy has the potential to be a useful batsmen, and with a chance at being an all-time great. But it's most likely that he'll do well for a few years, until someone better comes along.
*Makes you wonder if they've heard of Babe Ruth, converted from pitcher to Hall of Fame slugger, in Bangladesh.
Now, I'm not interested in the score, because my explorations of what wins cricket matches suggests to me that the kind of batsmen one wants are those who are consistently hard to get out, not necessarily 'Sydney or the Bush' merchants who rack up centuries now and then. Bowlers who take wickets at a high rate and batsmen who don't get out are the players who keep a side in the match. So instead of ranking people by score, I used CricInfo StatsGuru to rank them by balls faced. Note that I was only interested in debutants whose side batted second, in order to reduce the consideration set to as close a parallel as possible to Duminy.
Focusing on all those players within one standard deviation of Duminy's strike rate, we get a broad mix of talent, ranging from Tapash Baisya of Bangladesh, a bowler whose innings average doesn't even top ten*, to the late Taslim Arif, who managed to average just over 50 in a mere six Test matches. (A wicketkeeper, he gave way to Wasim Bari. You'd think they'd still have wanted his bat in the order somewhere.) Meanwhile, there's a couple of significant batsmen for whom we don't have complete Balls Faced statistics, in Lloyd and Gavaskar, and a couple of interesting might-have-beens in Amaranth and Baichan.
Overall, the standard deviation shortlist averages 34.60. The median belongs to Chandika Hathurusinga, at 28.95. It's too early to say more than Duminy has the potential to be a useful batsmen, and with a chance at being an all-time great. But it's most likely that he'll do well for a few years, until someone better comes along.
*Makes you wonder if they've heard of Babe Ruth, converted from pitcher to Hall of Fame slugger, in Bangladesh.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
