Hic sunt leones, a medieval cartographer might say of the parts unknown in which we find ourselves, win expectancy-wise.
Basically, England have about a 70 per cent chance of winning this match. But we've seen some violent swings in win expectancy today, and I'd be surprised if there aren't more during the rest of this match.
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 August 2010
Friday, 27 August 2010
Pakistan n England 2010, 4th Test.2
Phew! You'd think Pakistan would be on top of the world after that first session. And you'd almost be right.
Unsurprisingly, breaking out the win expectancy calculator reveals that Pakistan's best chance of winning occurred after the fall of Morgan's wicket.
However, in between, surprisingly, the fall of Collingwood's wicket saw a big swing to England. When wickets fall fast, it's a case of what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the pattern is set for the match. The side bowling second gets all the traditional advantages of the side bowling second, so wickets tumble even faster.
Pakistan's key wickets were those of Pietersen and Morgan. Even better for Pakistan, the current Trott-Prior partnership has seen England's win expectancy fall to its lowest level of the match, as the chance of a draw gradually rises.
At the moment, Pakistan have about a two-thirds chance of winning this match, and nearly a 9/10 chance of not losing it.
Unsurprisingly, breaking out the win expectancy calculator reveals that Pakistan's best chance of winning occurred after the fall of Morgan's wicket.
However, in between, surprisingly, the fall of Collingwood's wicket saw a big swing to England. When wickets fall fast, it's a case of what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the pattern is set for the match. The side bowling second gets all the traditional advantages of the side bowling second, so wickets tumble even faster.
Pakistan's key wickets were those of Pietersen and Morgan. Even better for Pakistan, the current Trott-Prior partnership has seen England's win expectancy fall to its lowest level of the match, as the chance of a draw gradually rises.
At the moment, Pakistan have about a two-thirds chance of winning this match, and nearly a 9/10 chance of not losing it.
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Pakistan in England 2010, 4th Test.1
The dismissal of Strauss had minimal impact on the Win Expectancy. England's chances of victory went down less that 0.1 per cent. Which is just another data point in my developing case that you don't actually need a big run total from your opening pair.
Monday, 23 August 2010
Test Ladder Updated
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.
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.
Sunday, 22 August 2010
Alastair Cook, Stay or Go?
Alastair Cook is 25 years old, a left-handed bat, and bats in the first, second or third positions in the batting order during his career.
I took all batsmen who meet those qualifications in what might be called the 'Bangladesh Era' of Test cricket (since 2000), plus all England batsmen who also meet those qualifications, with a minimum of ten innings of batting. I then compared their Innings Average, their Bowling Overs per Innings and the Standard Deviation of their innings' scores. For those who think a hundred against Bangladesh might only be worth, say 80 runs against a better Test side, I also calculated the Innings Average by adjusting the value of Cook's runs downwards by 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent and 33.3 per cent. (When you get to 50 per cent, you may as well exclude Bangladesh altogether, so I did that, too.) I'll rank them by Innings Average.
The idea of dropping Cook because of his current poor run of form overlooks the fact that he isn't actually having a bad year. In fact, in this set of batsmen he is having the best age-25 year of them all, with the best Innings Average and tied for the best BO/I numbers with Mark Butcher's 1998.
The only warning sign is the very high standard deviation in Cook's innings' scores. As you can see, the better players in this list have much narrower deviations. As in the case of Ramesh, however, it is possible to have too narrow a deviation. My studies of the significance of standard deviations are still rudimentary. It does seem that there is a sweet spot of these in which class batters tend to maintain, and players who fall either side of this are flattering to deceive if they seem any good.
So, if there's an obvious alternative to Cook, then it might be worth including him in any Ashes squad. But Cook still seems to deserve his place, as far as the statistics can show us.
I took all batsmen who meet those qualifications in what might be called the 'Bangladesh Era' of Test cricket (since 2000), plus all England batsmen who also meet those qualifications, with a minimum of ten innings of batting. I then compared their Innings Average, their Bowling Overs per Innings and the Standard Deviation of their innings' scores. For those who think a hundred against Bangladesh might only be worth, say 80 runs against a better Test side, I also calculated the Innings Average by adjusting the value of Cook's runs downwards by 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent and 33.3 per cent. (When you get to 50 per cent, you may as well exclude Bangladesh altogether, so I did that, too.) I'll rank them by Innings Average.
Player InnAve BO/I StDev Dates
Cook (-10%) 48.02
Alastair Cook 45.44 13.70 49.87 2009/10
Cook (-20%) 40.99
Kumar Sangakkara 40.40 13.00 29.39 2002/03
Cook (-25%) 39.88
Cook (no BAN) 37.91 42.96
Cook (-33.3%) 37.87
David Gower 37.62 13.63 30.02 1982/83
Wavell Hinds 36.70 11.50 34.09 2002
Salman Butt 34.80 12.26 30.59 2009/10
Graeme Smith 32.24 8.32 26.60 2006/07
Mark Butcher 30.87 13.70 33.27 1998
Sadagoppan Ramesh27.58 10.84 22.29 2000/01
The idea of dropping Cook because of his current poor run of form overlooks the fact that he isn't actually having a bad year. In fact, in this set of batsmen he is having the best age-25 year of them all, with the best Innings Average and tied for the best BO/I numbers with Mark Butcher's 1998.
The only warning sign is the very high standard deviation in Cook's innings' scores. As you can see, the better players in this list have much narrower deviations. As in the case of Ramesh, however, it is possible to have too narrow a deviation. My studies of the significance of standard deviations are still rudimentary. It does seem that there is a sweet spot of these in which class batters tend to maintain, and players who fall either side of this are flattering to deceive if they seem any good.
So, if there's an obvious alternative to Cook, then it might be worth including him in any Ashes squad. But Cook still seems to deserve his place, as far as the statistics can show us.
Friday, 20 August 2010
3rd Test, England vs Pakistan, 2010, Tea 3rd day
Well, actually, I looked at the win expectancy at the fall of Cook's wicket.
England should not take heart, although on a limited sample. Their chance of winning is poor, and a Pakistan victory seems the most likely outcome. England have a better chance of battling to a draw.
Of course, this is mercurial Pakistan, and if any team can upset the win expectancy apple cart, it is them.
England should not take heart, although on a limited sample. Their chance of winning is poor, and a Pakistan victory seems the most likely outcome. England have a better chance of battling to a draw.
Of course, this is mercurial Pakistan, and if any team can upset the win expectancy apple cart, it is them.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Ashes Series' Bowlers Rated
Using my 'series score' system, which adjusts bowlers' statistics for the number of runs scored in the series and the consequent effect of this on the value of wickets taken, we get the following ratings:
England's victory was certainly not won by their bowlers. They were, however, more economical than the Australians, and that may be the key to victory. Swann's series score in particular probably understates his value. In the end, however, the series score is based on taking wickets, and on that basis Onions' score over 5 innings may be worth even more than Broad's score over 8. Onions probably is the most underrated bowler in the side. Flintoff's figure might come as a surprise-but he only took 8 wickets for an average of 52.13. Not a very impressive departure from Test cricket.
Hilfenhaus 28
Broad 16
Siddle 16
Johnson 11
Onions 9
Hauritz 6
Harmison 2
Clark - 4
Katich - 4
Clarke - 5
Collingwood - 5
Bopara - 6
Swann - 7
Watson - 7
North - 8
Panesar -11
Anderson -14
Flintoff -17
England's victory was certainly not won by their bowlers. They were, however, more economical than the Australians, and that may be the key to victory. Swann's series score in particular probably understates his value. In the end, however, the series score is based on taking wickets, and on that basis Onions' score over 5 innings may be worth even more than Broad's score over 8. Onions probably is the most underrated bowler in the side. Flintoff's figure might come as a surprise-but he only took 8 wickets for an average of 52.13. Not a very impressive departure from Test cricket.
Saturday, 22 August 2009
Kennington Oval, Ashes 2009, #4
England fans were whooping up a storm as Australian wickets fell before the spin of Swann and the pace of Broad. For once, it appeared, the English brains trust had out-thought the Australians'. Then, of course, one-two-three, wickets fell as England attempted to gain more ground on a strong Australian batting line-up that could be expected to crank out 400 runs.
At close of play last night, England's Win Expectancy stood at something around 32%, which isn't any better than what you'd get at the start of a Test. However, Strauss and Trott batted away the morning session, until Strauss's wicket fell just before lunch.
The Win Expectancy model would surprisingly suggest that England's chances of winning continue to dwindle. Go figure. One problem with my model is that there aren't many examples of a match like this Test.
CricInfo's Hawk-Eye (linked via the scorecard there) sees an 80 per cent chance of an England win. I can't help but think they are underestimating Australia's batsmen.
At close of play last night, England's Win Expectancy stood at something around 32%, which isn't any better than what you'd get at the start of a Test. However, Strauss and Trott batted away the morning session, until Strauss's wicket fell just before lunch.
The Win Expectancy model would surprisingly suggest that England's chances of winning continue to dwindle. Go figure. One problem with my model is that there aren't many examples of a match like this Test.
CricInfo's Hawk-Eye (linked via the scorecard there) sees an 80 per cent chance of an England win. I can't help but think they are underestimating Australia's batsmen.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Kennington Oval, Ashes 2009, #3
At the end of the first day, this Test match is hard to read in terms of Win Expectancy. If the Australians can put up some good scores in their innings, they will probably win the match. However, England's actual position, at 307/8, is quite a decent chance to convert to a win. Throwing in all the factors - the Australian batting, the effect of the remaining resources for England, and England's current position - the draw remains the most favoured outcome (42 per cent), followed by an Australian victory (35 per cent), with an English victory the least likely (23 per cent).
Let's look at how England batsmen affected their chances:
Flintoff's was the most damaging wicket, which is to my mind somehow fitting given that this is his last Test. To prove the point about how he has been misunderstood by the selectors he should take ten wickets over the two innings, and go for not very many runs. His batting has always been overrated by England, and the persistence in regarding him as an all-rounder has weakened the side.
Australia have reason to be pleased with all their bowlers except Mitchell Johnson, who has been too expensive. Clark and Hilfenhaus may be lagging in taking wickets, but their economies are well-below the kind of number that characterizes a winning test side. Siddle's got the balance about right.
Let's look at how England batsmen affected their chances:
Cook -.034
Strauss +.016
Collingwood -.035
Bell +.062
Prior +.071
Flintoff -.151
Trott +.040
Swann -.013
Flintoff's was the most damaging wicket, which is to my mind somehow fitting given that this is his last Test. To prove the point about how he has been misunderstood by the selectors he should take ten wickets over the two innings, and go for not very many runs. His batting has always been overrated by England, and the persistence in regarding him as an all-rounder has weakened the side.
Australia have reason to be pleased with all their bowlers except Mitchell Johnson, who has been too expensive. Clark and Hilfenhaus may be lagging in taking wickets, but their economies are well-below the kind of number that characterizes a winning test side. Siddle's got the balance about right.
Kennington Oval, Ashes 2009, #2
Two points, at lunch.
On the win expectancy, the Cook wicket reduced England's chances of winning by .055. However, one might be surprised to learn that the stand by Strauss and Bell has had the effect of increasing the chances of a decision, which is helping Australia more than England. Australia's chance of winning is about 41 per cent.
I'm told Michael Holding, commentating on Sky, made a statement along the lines of 'Strauss isn't playing shots which suggests he might not have confidence in his batsmen'. I find statements like that beyond ludicrous. Strauss may have every confidence in his batsmen, but he's not taking risks because he recognizes he's got a chance to wear out the bowlers simply by defending his wicket. Or Holding could be right. But the point is Strauss's actions are open to more than one interpretation, and Holding is assuming Strauss has the same opinion of the England lineup as Holding does. That's not really very helpful or incisive.
On the win expectancy, the Cook wicket reduced England's chances of winning by .055. However, one might be surprised to learn that the stand by Strauss and Bell has had the effect of increasing the chances of a decision, which is helping Australia more than England. Australia's chance of winning is about 41 per cent.
I'm told Michael Holding, commentating on Sky, made a statement along the lines of 'Strauss isn't playing shots which suggests he might not have confidence in his batsmen'. I find statements like that beyond ludicrous. Strauss may have every confidence in his batsmen, but he's not taking risks because he recognizes he's got a chance to wear out the bowlers simply by defending his wicket. Or Holding could be right. But the point is Strauss's actions are open to more than one interpretation, and Holding is assuming Strauss has the same opinion of the England lineup as Holding does. That's not really very helpful or incisive.
Kennington Oval, Ashes 2009 #1
Hmm, I've come late to this, and missed the team news. I think both teams have made a mistake. Today's weather might favour the Australian option to go without a spinner, but over five days at the Oval I'd rather have five bowlers including at least one spinner. The Australian persistence with a four-bowler attack is mystifying me. I don't think this is good for pace bowlers' careers, although I'm still working on proving that.
But that's not as mystifying as England choosing Harmison, again. Onions has bowled at least one good innings in each Test he's played this summer. Harmison hasn't even bowled one good innings in the one Test he's played. It's just a joke, a triumph of media pressure over picking players currently demonstrating good form. I despair of England's selection policy, and have been doing so for seven years now.
But that's not as mystifying as England choosing Harmison, again. Onions has bowled at least one good innings in each Test he's played this summer. Harmison hasn't even bowled one good innings in the one Test he's played. It's just a joke, a triumph of media pressure over picking players currently demonstrating good form. I despair of England's selection policy, and have been doing so for seven years now.
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Fresh Blood?
Simon Hughes reviews some alternatives for the next Test. Meanwhile, my preference from the aftermath of the Cardiff Test (not so sure now), Jamie Dalrymple, leads the England Lions in a two-day match against Australia at the weekend.
UPDATE, 20 AUG 2009: Dalrymple got 58 off 122 balls in the Lions' match. Why wasn't he picked for the side? Instead we had a lot of fuss about Ramprakash and even the retired Trescothick. I ask you.
UPDATE, 20 AUG 2009: Dalrymple got 58 off 122 balls in the Lions' match. Why wasn't he picked for the side? Instead we had a lot of fuss about Ramprakash and even the retired Trescothick. I ask you.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Sloppy Playing, Sloppy Thinking
England's cricket team were completely outplayed at the Ashes Fourth Test at Headingley. But this is sports, you learn from your mistakes, put it behind you, and focus on winning the next time. Well, unless you're a panicky England fan.
This is the perfect example of the kind of sloppy, knee-jerk thinking that characterizes the English way of doing things. Go back to that Justin Langer document. Beneath all the Australian arrogance are two key points: 1) England's players like to feel they are making progress; 2) England are psychologically weak. Point two is the kind of 'cod psychology' that gives successful athletes a bad name. I'd almost recommend ignoring that nonsense, except in making that point, this document actually tells us something important.
Let's go back a bit here. England picked an XI at the start of the series that excluded Bell and Harmison. So why are they in the side now? We know the answer to that — injuries. The question is whether they are worth retaining as injury substitutes. Harmison was, apart from Anderson, the most expensive English bowler. That's fine if you take 4-5 wickets, but he took 2. He's been found wanting, and I don't need sabermetric methods to tell me he should be dropped. Bell is a different issue, in that there isn't an obvious alternative. I'd actually stick with him over any inexperienced batsmen, such as Trott.
The real England problem is a sabermetric issue. Basically, the batsmen don't seem to know where their stumps are, and can't seem to accept that they can be making progress in a Test match if they are not giving up their wickets. This isn't ODI or T/20 territory. You can bat all five days and be guaranteed not to lose the match. So it's a simple psychological tweak needed with the batsmen. Instead of them getting fidgety when they are not scoring, they should get fidgety when they are playing shots they don't need to. Also, they should try to reset themselves more often, so they have a clear idea where the stumps are. It doesn't matter what some sledging Ocker, with more lip than brains, has to say about it.
The bowlers have a similar issue. The trouble is in their heads. Yes, short-pitched, aggressive bowling sure looks good, but the reality is that if it's not productive, go for a longer length and if your deliveries are drifting wide, aim a little bit more at leg.
With Langer's (1), the issue is simply to redefine what making progress is.
(2) tells us more about Australia than England. The Australians have a confidence that comes from a tradition of winning, and look down on a side that during the Nasser Hussain years had all the charm of a little kid looking up to the 'Australian way' as the best. Normally, the English can look at these jumped-up transportees with a confidence that comes from greater sophistication. That doesn't quite carry over into the realm of sports (particularly with Nasser), so let's draw on some other good English traditions that have equated to winning. The England side needs to remember the kind of bloody-minded stubbornness that made its soldiers and sailors the best in the world in the eighteenth century and after. 'Throw everything you like at us, mate, we'll be here tomorrow.'
This is the perfect example of the kind of sloppy, knee-jerk thinking that characterizes the English way of doing things. Go back to that Justin Langer document. Beneath all the Australian arrogance are two key points: 1) England's players like to feel they are making progress; 2) England are psychologically weak. Point two is the kind of 'cod psychology' that gives successful athletes a bad name. I'd almost recommend ignoring that nonsense, except in making that point, this document actually tells us something important.
Let's go back a bit here. England picked an XI at the start of the series that excluded Bell and Harmison. So why are they in the side now? We know the answer to that — injuries. The question is whether they are worth retaining as injury substitutes. Harmison was, apart from Anderson, the most expensive English bowler. That's fine if you take 4-5 wickets, but he took 2. He's been found wanting, and I don't need sabermetric methods to tell me he should be dropped. Bell is a different issue, in that there isn't an obvious alternative. I'd actually stick with him over any inexperienced batsmen, such as Trott.
The real England problem is a sabermetric issue. Basically, the batsmen don't seem to know where their stumps are, and can't seem to accept that they can be making progress in a Test match if they are not giving up their wickets. This isn't ODI or T/20 territory. You can bat all five days and be guaranteed not to lose the match. So it's a simple psychological tweak needed with the batsmen. Instead of them getting fidgety when they are not scoring, they should get fidgety when they are playing shots they don't need to. Also, they should try to reset themselves more often, so they have a clear idea where the stumps are. It doesn't matter what some sledging Ocker, with more lip than brains, has to say about it.
The bowlers have a similar issue. The trouble is in their heads. Yes, short-pitched, aggressive bowling sure looks good, but the reality is that if it's not productive, go for a longer length and if your deliveries are drifting wide, aim a little bit more at leg.
With Langer's (1), the issue is simply to redefine what making progress is.
(2) tells us more about Australia than England. The Australians have a confidence that comes from a tradition of winning, and look down on a side that during the Nasser Hussain years had all the charm of a little kid looking up to the 'Australian way' as the best. Normally, the English can look at these jumped-up transportees with a confidence that comes from greater sophistication. That doesn't quite carry over into the realm of sports (particularly with Nasser), so let's draw on some other good English traditions that have equated to winning. The England side needs to remember the kind of bloody-minded stubbornness that made its soldiers and sailors the best in the world in the eighteenth century and after. 'Throw everything you like at us, mate, we'll be here tomorrow.'
Saturday, 8 August 2009
'Oh, Calamity' - Headingley Test 2009
Michael Henderson just about says it all about the Headingley Test, although I haven't actually seen any of the action. I'm told CricInfo had rather over-egged the pudding in describing North's catch off Strauss.
Looking at a rough estimate of Win Expectancy at the end of England's first innings, they had about an 18 per cent chance of winning the Test from that point. Looking at how those wins were achieved, they fall into two categories:
1) Bowling out the other side for even less. ENGLAND FAIL
2) Keeping the other side's score within about 100 runs. ENGLAND FAIL
That leaves us commentators with not much to write about.
I could talk about England selection, and even Australian selection. After the Australian's hinted at something really radical, like using five bowlers, they fell into their default option, merely replacing the spinner with a pace bowler. Meanwhile, England, confronted with Flintoff's injury, were forced to think through all the permutations. One wonders if they thought at any length about sticking Trott in the side and going with four bowlers. I doubt it.
EDIT: Couldn't we make the same complaint about both Flintoff and Harmison? They bowl to too short a length? Food for thought there.
Looking at a rough estimate of Win Expectancy at the end of England's first innings, they had about an 18 per cent chance of winning the Test from that point. Looking at how those wins were achieved, they fall into two categories:
1) Bowling out the other side for even less. ENGLAND FAIL
2) Keeping the other side's score within about 100 runs. ENGLAND FAIL
That leaves us commentators with not much to write about.
I could talk about England selection, and even Australian selection. After the Australian's hinted at something really radical, like using five bowlers, they fell into their default option, merely replacing the spinner with a pace bowler. Meanwhile, England, confronted with Flintoff's injury, were forced to think through all the permutations. One wonders if they thought at any length about sticking Trott in the side and going with four bowlers. I doubt it.
EDIT: Couldn't we make the same complaint about both Flintoff and Harmison? They bowl to too short a length? Food for thought there.
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Edgbaston Win Expectancy Shifts
The Third Test between England and Australia produced, apart from this curiosity, some big shifts in win expectancy. I've pulled out the three biggest positive shifts, in terms of the side batting, and the three biggest negative ones. Reverse the polarity if you want to look at it in terms of bowling.
BIG Plus
Watson-Ponting, 41 runs for the 2nd wicket in AUS1 (+.218)
Watson-Hussey, 85 runs for the 3rd wicket in AUS2 (+.197)
Cook-Bopara, 58 runs for the 2nd wicket in ENG1 (+.171)
BIG Minus
Hussey, 0, in AUS1 (-.287)
Collingwood, 13, in ENG1 (-.188)
Ponting, 5, in AUS2 (-.178)
Honourable mention has to go to Cook, 0, in ENG1, which was worth -.176.
It's worth noting that for wickets or stands to count, they really need to come in pairs. It's no good piling on 100 runs and follow it with a pittance. Nor is taking a top batsman's wicket for a low score worth much if you don't break up the next partnership pretty quickly. You can let the wicket after that go for a bit, though. Anapestic metre, if you're of a poetic mind.
Are you surprised that the massive Clarke-North stand in the Australian second innings didn't appear? Probably not, as it was too late in the match to affect anything other than their averages. It actually did produce a positive effect, but I just wonder if the Australians should have cut it short when it was around a hundred and gone for a win. You never know.
BIG Plus
Watson-Ponting, 41 runs for the 2nd wicket in AUS1 (+.218)
Watson-Hussey, 85 runs for the 3rd wicket in AUS2 (+.197)
Cook-Bopara, 58 runs for the 2nd wicket in ENG1 (+.171)
BIG Minus
Hussey, 0, in AUS1 (-.287)
Collingwood, 13, in ENG1 (-.188)
Ponting, 5, in AUS2 (-.178)
Honourable mention has to go to Cook, 0, in ENG1, which was worth -.176.
It's worth noting that for wickets or stands to count, they really need to come in pairs. It's no good piling on 100 runs and follow it with a pittance. Nor is taking a top batsman's wicket for a low score worth much if you don't break up the next partnership pretty quickly. You can let the wicket after that go for a bit, though. Anapestic metre, if you're of a poetic mind.
Are you surprised that the massive Clarke-North stand in the Australian second innings didn't appear? Probably not, as it was too late in the match to affect anything other than their averages. It actually did produce a positive effect, but I just wonder if the Australians should have cut it short when it was around a hundred and gone for a win. You never know.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Sir Geoffrey's Edgbaston Recipe
Boycott, writing before the bad news about Kevin Pietersen, reconstructs the England side for the Edgbaston Test.
His recipe is:
Bell for Pietersen
Harmison for Onions
Sidebottom for Broad
As much as I think Sir Geoffrey is the closest thing to a real, live cricketer who thinks along sabermetric lines, I can't back all his suggestions. Although Sidebottom had a good first innings at this same ground against South Africa last year, he's not a particularly penetrative bowler against top batting sides. I don't think he'll provide sufficient difference to Broad. I don't mind giving Broad a match off, on my 'rest the bowlers' principle, but I don't see them as significantly different.
Harmison is an idea I can get behind. He's had his moments against Australia, especially during the 2005 Ashes series. He also did well against the South Africans at the Oval last year. However, he hasn't really been a consistent bowler since that last home Ashes series, so if he flopped at Edgbaston I'm not sure I'd go back to him. I'm not sure I'd bring him in to replace Onions. Onions has, in limited playing time, shown some ability to get Australian wickets.
Bell is a risky pick. I'm not sure I'd do it, but I don't know who else is available. People have suggested Key, but he's risky, too. He's vulnerable batting at the end of sessions as the Australians have shown in the past. But who else is there? The only players whose County Championship statistics are making an obvious case are Key and Jamie Dalrymple. I feel the stats have to yield first place to the people who actually watch a lot of cricket, and know the players, in making this pick. However, given Broad's spectacular catch, I'd give extra weight to fielding ability here.
So, my recipe has two changes from the Lord's Test.
Harmison for Broad
Best fielding batting candidate for Pietersen
Broad for Onions only if Onions is hurt.
His recipe is:
Bell for Pietersen
Harmison for Onions
Sidebottom for Broad
As much as I think Sir Geoffrey is the closest thing to a real, live cricketer who thinks along sabermetric lines, I can't back all his suggestions. Although Sidebottom had a good first innings at this same ground against South Africa last year, he's not a particularly penetrative bowler against top batting sides. I don't think he'll provide sufficient difference to Broad. I don't mind giving Broad a match off, on my 'rest the bowlers' principle, but I don't see them as significantly different.
Harmison is an idea I can get behind. He's had his moments against Australia, especially during the 2005 Ashes series. He also did well against the South Africans at the Oval last year. However, he hasn't really been a consistent bowler since that last home Ashes series, so if he flopped at Edgbaston I'm not sure I'd go back to him. I'm not sure I'd bring him in to replace Onions. Onions has, in limited playing time, shown some ability to get Australian wickets.
Bell is a risky pick. I'm not sure I'd do it, but I don't know who else is available. People have suggested Key, but he's risky, too. He's vulnerable batting at the end of sessions as the Australians have shown in the past. But who else is there? The only players whose County Championship statistics are making an obvious case are Key and Jamie Dalrymple. I feel the stats have to yield first place to the people who actually watch a lot of cricket, and know the players, in making this pick. However, given Broad's spectacular catch, I'd give extra weight to fielding ability here.
So, my recipe has two changes from the Lord's Test.
Harmison for Broad
Best fielding batting candidate for Pietersen
Broad for Onions only if Onions is hurt.
Monday, 20 July 2009
The Bump in the Road
'Records are made to be broken.'
No-one has chased down 522, but every patriotic Englishman or Englishwoman must have gone to bed tonight with that saying at the back of his or her mind. Might I draw your attention to this test? Or, more worryingly, this one? Yes, those teams didn't chase down 522 runs, but they did go into their final innings with challenging targets. The only big difference is they achieved their victories at home.
Clarke and Haddin have actually shifted momentum towards Australia in a decisive way. England are looking like they are on the ropes now, if you ask me. In fact, calculating Australia's chances of victory suggests to me that they are above 50 per cent. I don't believe it, myself. (Sometimes, the numbers lie.) I think we'll see a draw. Tommorrow will see whether I should trust the numbers.
If they do pull it out, expect to see more articles like this one. I have a bone to pick with it, where Mr de Lisle writes:
Good, I say. The issue is whether it's more important to win matches or to avoid losing them. In my italianate way, I lean toward the latter. Don't give away wickets with a long tail of feeble batsmen, especially against a strong batting side like the Australians. West Indies show you the flaw in that strategy. It's more important to bat as deeply as you can. I'd even argue that Australia's difficulties arise out of taking that advice to the extreme. They almost certainly need another bowler. Three seamers and a spinner are not enough, unless two of those are all-time greats like McGrath and Warne. You need five bowlers, although one of them can just be a 'change' bowler who keeps the runs down and gives the attacking bowlers a rest. But perhaps that's better discussed another time.
No-one has chased down 522, but every patriotic Englishman or Englishwoman must have gone to bed tonight with that saying at the back of his or her mind. Might I draw your attention to this test? Or, more worryingly, this one? Yes, those teams didn't chase down 522 runs, but they did go into their final innings with challenging targets. The only big difference is they achieved their victories at home.
Clarke and Haddin have actually shifted momentum towards Australia in a decisive way. England are looking like they are on the ropes now, if you ask me. In fact, calculating Australia's chances of victory suggests to me that they are above 50 per cent. I don't believe it, myself. (Sometimes, the numbers lie.) I think we'll see a draw. Tommorrow will see whether I should trust the numbers.
If they do pull it out, expect to see more articles like this one. I have a bone to pick with it, where Mr de Lisle writes:
In fact [the bowlers] batted better than most of the batsmen.
Good, I say. The issue is whether it's more important to win matches or to avoid losing them. In my italianate way, I lean toward the latter. Don't give away wickets with a long tail of feeble batsmen, especially against a strong batting side like the Australians. West Indies show you the flaw in that strategy. It's more important to bat as deeply as you can. I'd even argue that Australia's difficulties arise out of taking that advice to the extreme. They almost certainly need another bowler. Three seamers and a spinner are not enough, unless two of those are all-time greats like McGrath and Warne. You need five bowlers, although one of them can just be a 'change' bowler who keeps the runs down and gives the attacking bowlers a rest. But perhaps that's better discussed another time.
Saturday, 18 July 2009
Declaration Time?
England face a nice problem in the Lord's Test against the Australians. How many runs will make the game safe? How much time is needed to take ten Australian wickets? It was exercising the Sky commentators through most of the session after Tea, but I thought Atherton summed it up well. 'Bat through to about 40 minutes of the morning session, then declare,' he said.
At the time he made that statement, I thought England needed less time and more runs, and suggested batting through to mid-afternoon. Then, somebody made the comment that Lord's lately had proven to be a hard ground to take wickets on days 4 and 5. (Or maybe it was just day 5.) People often say such things, then you look it up and they are completely wrong.
Mostly memory is a case of people remembering the last time. In 2008, England couldn't buy a wicket at Lord's against South Africa for two days. In fact, looking over the past six years, taking ten wickets starting sometime on the fourth day looks pretty attractive. With a full day on Monday, I think England should calculate on getting 4 wickets. So how much time will it take to break the first six partnerships on Sunday?
I think Atherton has it about right. Declare sometime during the morning session, and go for it.
At the time he made that statement, I thought England needed less time and more runs, and suggested batting through to mid-afternoon. Then, somebody made the comment that Lord's lately had proven to be a hard ground to take wickets on days 4 and 5. (Or maybe it was just day 5.) People often say such things, then you look it up and they are completely wrong.
Test Day 4 Day 5
2004 vs NZL 9 3
2004 vs WIN 8 7
2005 vs AUS 5 n/a
2006 vs SRL 3 3
2006 vs PAK 8 4
2007 vs WIN 11 0
2007 vs IND 11 6
2008 vs NZL 10 6
2008 vs RSA 1 2
Mostly memory is a case of people remembering the last time. In 2008, England couldn't buy a wicket at Lord's against South Africa for two days. In fact, looking over the past six years, taking ten wickets starting sometime on the fourth day looks pretty attractive. With a full day on Monday, I think England should calculate on getting 4 wickets. So how much time will it take to break the first six partnerships on Sunday?
I think Atherton has it about right. Declare sometime during the morning session, and go for it.
Lord's Nelsons
111 was bad news for the Australians today.
I've been playing around with a slightly modified version of the Runs/Wickets state ideas I'd mentioned earlier this year. I'm moving in the direction of 'Win Expectancy', although to do it properly, one needs to use a Markov chain I think.
Here are my calculations of the chances of an Australian victory after the fall of each Australian wicket:
Opening of Australian innings: 11.2 per cent
Hughes +8.6
Ponting +2.5
Katich no change
Hussey -9.3
Clarke -2.6
North +4.6
Johnson +1.2
Haddin -2.2
This data might indicate something I've been thinking about for a while, which is that the openers' wickets aren't as important as may be thought. Any runs they score helps their team's cause. The crucial point in the match is the battle for the 3rd and 4th wickets. If these fall cheaply, in quick succession, that shifts the advantage toward the bowling side quite strongly.
In today's play Katich's and Hussey's stand didn't help out very much, because after Hughes and Ponting were out for low scores, it was vital for the third-wicket partnership to make up the difference. They didn't, and to dismiss Hussey for only eight more runs after Katich was caught by Broad put the Australians in a very difficult situation.
Of course, each wicket only affects the match a small amount, so one shouldn't put too much weight on the third and fourth wickets. It's not hard to recover lost ground with a fifty partnership for the sixth or seventh wicket. That's the beauty of Test cricket, that it's so finely balanced at any given moment.
I've been playing around with a slightly modified version of the Runs/Wickets state ideas I'd mentioned earlier this year. I'm moving in the direction of 'Win Expectancy', although to do it properly, one needs to use a Markov chain I think.
Here are my calculations of the chances of an Australian victory after the fall of each Australian wicket:
Opening of Australian innings: 11.2 per cent
Hughes +8.6
Ponting +2.5
Katich no change
Hussey -9.3
Clarke -2.6
North +4.6
Johnson +1.2
Haddin -2.2
This data might indicate something I've been thinking about for a while, which is that the openers' wickets aren't as important as may be thought. Any runs they score helps their team's cause. The crucial point in the match is the battle for the 3rd and 4th wickets. If these fall cheaply, in quick succession, that shifts the advantage toward the bowling side quite strongly.
In today's play Katich's and Hussey's stand didn't help out very much, because after Hughes and Ponting were out for low scores, it was vital for the third-wicket partnership to make up the difference. They didn't, and to dismiss Hussey for only eight more runs after Katich was caught by Broad put the Australians in a very difficult situation.
Of course, each wicket only affects the match a small amount, so one shouldn't put too much weight on the third and fourth wickets. It's not hard to recover lost ground with a fifty partnership for the sixth or seventh wicket. That's the beauty of Test cricket, that it's so finely balanced at any given moment.
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Flintoff's Farewell to Test Cricket
Andrew Flintoff, England 'all-rounder', is to retire from Test cricket. It's too early to do a post-mortem on his Test career, but this is momentous news, worthy of a post.
Flintoff played a significant role in the development of sabermetric cricket. One of the first studies I ever did—on paper, not electronically, so no link—told me straightaway that he had been mislabelled, and it was to curse him for all his career. As I heard Jonathan Agnew say, on the BBC Radio 4 Midnight News, 'In black and white, Flintoff's career figures don't add up to much...a bowling average...higher than his batting.'
Yes, they don't add up to much because people were so in awe of his batting style when he was brought into the side back in 1998, that it was overlooked that he was an excellent 'change' bowler. With 'all-rounder' attached to his name, Flintoff was always doomed to disappoint in the Test arena. His attacking style of batsmanship had too many holes that could be exploited by good bowling. He never 'adds up', because people are too busy looking at his shortcomings, not at his successes.
There's a joke in the world of baseball sabermetrics about how 'statheads' live in their mothers' basements studying spreadsheets on a computer. 'Get your head out of a spreadsheet and watch a game,' goes the jibe. Yet it only took some dozy Yank who never played the game, and barely watched it, (I am a radio listener) a few minutes one lunchtime with a pen, a calculator, a bit of paper and some cricket statistics copied off the Internet to figure out that all those people watching the games had Flintoff tagged wrongly. He was a world-class Test bowler who could bat a bit. I salute him.
Flintoff played a significant role in the development of sabermetric cricket. One of the first studies I ever did—on paper, not electronically, so no link—told me straightaway that he had been mislabelled, and it was to curse him for all his career. As I heard Jonathan Agnew say, on the BBC Radio 4 Midnight News, 'In black and white, Flintoff's career figures don't add up to much...a bowling average...higher than his batting.'
Yes, they don't add up to much because people were so in awe of his batting style when he was brought into the side back in 1998, that it was overlooked that he was an excellent 'change' bowler. With 'all-rounder' attached to his name, Flintoff was always doomed to disappoint in the Test arena. His attacking style of batsmanship had too many holes that could be exploited by good bowling. He never 'adds up', because people are too busy looking at his shortcomings, not at his successes.
There's a joke in the world of baseball sabermetrics about how 'statheads' live in their mothers' basements studying spreadsheets on a computer. 'Get your head out of a spreadsheet and watch a game,' goes the jibe. Yet it only took some dozy Yank who never played the game, and barely watched it, (I am a radio listener) a few minutes one lunchtime with a pen, a calculator, a bit of paper and some cricket statistics copied off the Internet to figure out that all those people watching the games had Flintoff tagged wrongly. He was a world-class Test bowler who could bat a bit. I salute him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
