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 India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Monday, 23 August 2010
Monday, 19 July 2010
No Play Galle
Wet conditions prevented Sri Lanka and India from getting any play in today at Galle, in the first test of India's tour. Who is more likely to be frustrated, Sri Lanka or India?
Looking over previous Galle tests, you'd have to think it was Sri Lanka. They made an excellent start, and half of those teams whose first innings total was 250 or more went on to win the match here.
The only loser was a 2001 West Indian side, despite a 178 from Brian Lara. Loose bowling and a top-order collapse in the second innings ended their chance of a victory. Reading the match commentary, it looks as if Captain Hooper's tactics were a little faulty.
India managed to win a match here over four days in 2008 after making 329 in their first innings, so Sri Lanka still have some hope, provided the weather co-operates.
Looking over previous Galle tests, you'd have to think it was Sri Lanka. They made an excellent start, and half of those teams whose first innings total was 250 or more went on to win the match here.
The only loser was a 2001 West Indian side, despite a 178 from Brian Lara. Loose bowling and a top-order collapse in the second innings ended their chance of a victory. Reading the match commentary, it looks as if Captain Hooper's tactics were a little faulty.
India managed to win a match here over four days in 2008 after making 329 in their first innings, so Sri Lanka still have some hope, provided the weather co-operates.
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.
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Cricket's Testing Time
Dale Steyn has failed a drug test taken while he was playing in the IPL. His sample showed morphine, which it is said is a consequence of some codeine he was taking. One wouldn't say too much about it, unless an unreasonable punishment was imposed by the authorities, in the circumstances, were it not for the curious objections raised by the Board of Control for Cricket in India to the World Anti-Doping Agency's testing regime.
Ostensibly, the objections are in fact the players'; the BCCI's role in all this is purely a supportive one. However, you don't have to be particularly imaginative to raise questions about whether the organization put out the word that they'd certainly like it if players made objections. From my distance, I can only speculate.
The shocking thing is that cricket is known to have at least a few issues with performance-enhancing drugs. Furthermore, the ICC signed up for this not, a few months ago, but in July 2006. Lastly, Indian cricketers are not backed by their own international union.
The stakes here are potentially huge. Cricket is currently an Olympic sport, and that means the massive Chinese market is interested in taking up the game. For the Indian players and the BCCI to stand in the way of the WADA code puts that position at risk, and reopens the door for baseball to move into a space that it vacated when it lost its position as an Olympic sport. The ICC really needs to stand its ground, even if it makes conciliatory noises in public.
Ostensibly, the objections are in fact the players'; the BCCI's role in all this is purely a supportive one. However, you don't have to be particularly imaginative to raise questions about whether the organization put out the word that they'd certainly like it if players made objections. From my distance, I can only speculate.
The shocking thing is that cricket is known to have at least a few issues with performance-enhancing drugs. Furthermore, the ICC signed up for this not, a few months ago, but in July 2006. Lastly, Indian cricketers are not backed by their own international union.
The stakes here are potentially huge. Cricket is currently an Olympic sport, and that means the massive Chinese market is interested in taking up the game. For the Indian players and the BCCI to stand in the way of the WADA code puts that position at risk, and reopens the door for baseball to move into a space that it vacated when it lost its position as an Olympic sport. The ICC really needs to stand its ground, even if it makes conciliatory noises in public.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
