Knee-jerk reaction is never altogether helpful in a matter like this.
However, listening to The World This Weekend on the Home Service this lunchtime, one heard exactly what the root of the problem was: How does a young Pakistani cricketer make a realistic wage in an industry where his place is subject to the whims of an unstable organization? Mihir Bose suggested that ready money from the gamblers trumped the graft of becoming a big star and gaining sponsorships.
Bose said that the problem was that international cricket 'lacked the teeth' to enforce the real change needed to end the repeated influence of gamblers on international cricket once and for all. He blamed the relaxed gentlemanly attitudes of the 'English club', as opposed to the French-style officiousness of other international sporting organizations such as FIFA. Then he suggested that the BCCI would never give up the power it wielded to an international body. So the end is that there is no solution.
I'd argue that if the problem is the distribution of income to players, then the solution rests in the players' hands, as the relaxed gentlemanly attitudes suggest. Basically, Pakistani cricketers need a strong players' organization to fight on their behalf to ensure that selection is stable and that the rewards of playing international cricket are sufficient that only those who are not sporting cricketers in the first place will be tempted by the gamblers.
In other words, a strong and powerful union, which will need to function at an international level to be effective.
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Sunday, 29 August 2010
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
The Bradman Class and Sabermetrics
My link in yesterday's blog, which was to a discussion on the validity of sabermetric methods for cricket, was itself generated by the publication of this paper in The Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports.
The authors propose a new method of evaluating Test batsmen, which tries to incorporate the consistency of a batsman's innings. Someone like Alistair Cook has a high average this year, but it's a consequence of a couple of big innings, rather than consistency. His median score is quite low. The question the paper's authors don't address, however, is whether a consistent batsman is more likely to produce Test match wins. What they do look at is the relative importance of a batsman's average to that of his team-mates, but this isn't the same thing.
This is where most of what passes for sabermetric research in cricket misses the point. Ranking batsmen is jolly good fun for a discussion down the pub. What I want to know, however, is the relationship between runs and wins.
And that's what I still regard as my key discovery: it is more important to stop your wicket from being taken than to score masses of runs. This means it is more important to have bowlers who take wickets than to have batsmen who score runs. The secret to success in Test cricket is the right balance between how quickly you take wickets, and how slowly you lose them. The first building block in this is to find bowlers, not batsmen. And that raises an interesting question about the relationship between bowlers' overuse and injuries or declines in effectiveness.
The authors propose a new method of evaluating Test batsmen, which tries to incorporate the consistency of a batsman's innings. Someone like Alistair Cook has a high average this year, but it's a consequence of a couple of big innings, rather than consistency. His median score is quite low. The question the paper's authors don't address, however, is whether a consistent batsman is more likely to produce Test match wins. What they do look at is the relative importance of a batsman's average to that of his team-mates, but this isn't the same thing.
This is where most of what passes for sabermetric research in cricket misses the point. Ranking batsmen is jolly good fun for a discussion down the pub. What I want to know, however, is the relationship between runs and wins.
And that's what I still regard as my key discovery: it is more important to stop your wicket from being taken than to score masses of runs. This means it is more important to have bowlers who take wickets than to have batsmen who score runs. The secret to success in Test cricket is the right balance between how quickly you take wickets, and how slowly you lose them. The first building block in this is to find bowlers, not batsmen. And that raises an interesting question about the relationship between bowlers' overuse and injuries or declines in effectiveness.
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Getting That Wand Out Again
In the 1988 Baseball Abstract, Bill James famously 'broke his wand'. He'd been increasingly annoyed, he said, by the abusive attitude of people that fame had brought him into contact with. So he gave up writing the Abstracts and turned to other projects. Time proved this episode to be a minor blip in the Long March of Sabermetrics, but for about a year people like me were left wondering from where we would get our annual fix about the 'objective understanding of baseball'. In the end, the rights to the Abstract were passed on, and Don Malcolm and Brock Hanke eventually started to produce their own baseball annuals that kept the flame alive until Usenet equipped amateur sabermetrics with a quicker means of debate and discussion. Out of this came Baseball Prospectus and all the sabermetric sites and thoughts we know today in the baseball world.
Last week, I noted that the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports had published a study of batsmen. What I didn't know until yesterday was that Andy Bull, at The Guardian, had written about it. In the comments below his article, a cursory debate about the validity of sabermetrics for cricket ensued. Sadly, I missed all this.
I'm more than a trifle annoyed that, for all the large gaps in my publishing record, someone like Andy Bull has never, ever mentioned that Phil and I were the first people publicly even to connect sabermetrics to cricket. There are plenty of good and bad reasons why I don't post frequently, but all the conclusions I believe are valid have been published in some form or other, either here or on the old site. We deserve some credit for that, the same as F C Lane and George Lindsey get credit in any sound history of performance analysis of baseball statistics.
I've allowed this to turn into a sour rant, but I'm going to let it stand anyway. I actually meant to talk about the scepticism shown by many posters about the validity of sabermetric methods applied to cricket statistics. In particular, the comment by a poster named 'quebecer' that sabermetrics is not transferable to cricket 'except in the broadest possible sense' is, I think, based on a misunderstanding of sabermetrics. However, I'll leave that for another day, or answer him by posting more findings over time, to illustrate why he's wrong.
Last week, I noted that the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports had published a study of batsmen. What I didn't know until yesterday was that Andy Bull, at The Guardian, had written about it. In the comments below his article, a cursory debate about the validity of sabermetrics for cricket ensued. Sadly, I missed all this.
I'm more than a trifle annoyed that, for all the large gaps in my publishing record, someone like Andy Bull has never, ever mentioned that Phil and I were the first people publicly even to connect sabermetrics to cricket. There are plenty of good and bad reasons why I don't post frequently, but all the conclusions I believe are valid have been published in some form or other, either here or on the old site. We deserve some credit for that, the same as F C Lane and George Lindsey get credit in any sound history of performance analysis of baseball statistics.
I've allowed this to turn into a sour rant, but I'm going to let it stand anyway. I actually meant to talk about the scepticism shown by many posters about the validity of sabermetric methods applied to cricket statistics. In particular, the comment by a poster named 'quebecer' that sabermetrics is not transferable to cricket 'except in the broadest possible sense' is, I think, based on a misunderstanding of sabermetrics. However, I'll leave that for another day, or answer him by posting more findings over time, to illustrate why he's wrong.
Friday, 28 August 2009
Limited Vision?
The England and Wales Cricket Board has called for a reduction in the length of the first-class one-day international game.
I don't pretend to know a whole lot of the history of one-day cricket in England, but I do remember for many years there was a 40-over Sunday league, which I used to watch on the BBC. Since all televised cricket seems to have gone to Sky, which I don't have, I haven't the foggiest idea of whether this 40-over championship is still going. As I recall, at one time there was a range of one-day formats played, ranging I think from 40 to 50 to 55 or 60.
The point I'm driving at, though, is that 40-over cricket has a long history in England. What I see here is the English deciding, in their tradition of 'splendid isolation', to pursue their own market and attempt to persuade the rest of the world to follow suit. Good luck with that.
However, I don't disagree with the principle the ECB is embracing here. 50-over cricket, for all its popularity in India, is still too long a form of the game. As with sabermetrics, the ICC could learn a thing or two from the Americans about game lengths. It's a fact that most American sports, which are hugely successful money-making enterprises, have games that last three-to-four hours. 50-over cricket lasts a whole day of six or seven hours. That's still too long. Given the choice of options, the ECB should either get the ICC behind T/20 cricket as the main short form of the game, or rally support behind a number between 20 and 40. Whisper it in Calcutta or Mumbai, but 50-over cricket is en route to becoming a peculiar form of the game, like Test matches, appealing to a particular market.
I don't pretend to know a whole lot of the history of one-day cricket in England, but I do remember for many years there was a 40-over Sunday league, which I used to watch on the BBC. Since all televised cricket seems to have gone to Sky, which I don't have, I haven't the foggiest idea of whether this 40-over championship is still going. As I recall, at one time there was a range of one-day formats played, ranging I think from 40 to 50 to 55 or 60.
The point I'm driving at, though, is that 40-over cricket has a long history in England. What I see here is the English deciding, in their tradition of 'splendid isolation', to pursue their own market and attempt to persuade the rest of the world to follow suit. Good luck with that.
However, I don't disagree with the principle the ECB is embracing here. 50-over cricket, for all its popularity in India, is still too long a form of the game. As with sabermetrics, the ICC could learn a thing or two from the Americans about game lengths. It's a fact that most American sports, which are hugely successful money-making enterprises, have games that last three-to-four hours. 50-over cricket lasts a whole day of six or seven hours. That's still too long. Given the choice of options, the ECB should either get the ICC behind T/20 cricket as the main short form of the game, or rally support behind a number between 20 and 40. Whisper it in Calcutta or Mumbai, but 50-over cricket is en route to becoming a peculiar form of the game, like Test matches, appealing to a particular market.
Friday, 21 August 2009
Cricket's Smoke
An Australian player may have been approached by a bookmaker. He reported the matter to the ICC. We also had gamblers in the vicinity of Pakistan cricket players recently. Where there's smoke, there's fire.
For me, cricket hasn't really recovered from the old Hansie Cronje scandal. I have too many questions still. I don't think the problem will be solved until cricket adopts the baseball solution - get caught betting on games, even if they don't involve your team, get permanently suspended. I would even take it further, and extend the ban on players betting to all sports. Gambling and sport just don't mix.
For me, cricket hasn't really recovered from the old Hansie Cronje scandal. I have too many questions still. I don't think the problem will be solved until cricket adopts the baseball solution - get caught betting on games, even if they don't involve your team, get permanently suspended. I would even take it further, and extend the ban on players betting to all sports. Gambling and sport just don't mix.
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, 9 August 2009
Fielding Statistics in Cricket
Samir Chopra has an important suggestion. I don't agree that for cricket statistics we need to go quite as far as baseball's newer fielding statistics like Ultimate Zone Rating, but it would be helpful to track chances and catches.
I get the feeling Samir is thinking of marking fielders for letting what should be a single or two runs go through for three or a boundary. I think it would be more helpful to track bowler's lengths, the overs and sessions in which wickets fall (which is now tracked in full scorecards, sometimes), and where catches were made, for starters. The last two are pieces of information that could easily be incorporated in existing full scorecards.
There's also an issue here about Moneyball and sabermetrics, which are not the same things. Moneyball is about finding 'market inefficiencies' - discovering things that are valuable and undervalued - in order to exploit them. You can't trade players in International cricket, so that's all a bit pointless. What a cricket sabermetrics needs to do is figure out what wins matches. There's a simple answer (wickets and runs) and a complex answer, which is a question of what skills are valuable and need to be coached. In other words, let's value results over technical mastery.
Hat tip to Baseball Think Factory.
I get the feeling Samir is thinking of marking fielders for letting what should be a single or two runs go through for three or a boundary. I think it would be more helpful to track bowler's lengths, the overs and sessions in which wickets fall (which is now tracked in full scorecards, sometimes), and where catches were made, for starters. The last two are pieces of information that could easily be incorporated in existing full scorecards.
There's also an issue here about Moneyball and sabermetrics, which are not the same things. Moneyball is about finding 'market inefficiencies' - discovering things that are valuable and undervalued - in order to exploit them. You can't trade players in International cricket, so that's all a bit pointless. What a cricket sabermetrics needs to do is figure out what wins matches. There's a simple answer (wickets and runs) and a complex answer, which is a question of what skills are valuable and need to be coached. In other words, let's value results over technical mastery.
Hat tip to Baseball Think Factory.
Cricket's Enduring Scandal
Well, here we go again. Rumours swirl around Pakistan's cricketers. You'd think the ICC would have put some kind of policy in place by now that would make it absolutely clear to players that associating with gamblers would lead to trouble. They should take a leaf out of Major-League-Baseball's book and post in all dressing rooms that gambling on matches is prohibited and will result in a lifetime suspension. And add to it that being seen in company with known gamblers and bookmakers will lead to an investigation.
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Andy Flower is a genius.
Because he agrees with me. Squad system for bowlers? Absolutely, positively!
And, thus, you want to protect them from injury through overuse.
'Test-class bowlers are the rarest and most valuable currency in the game....as the old saying goes, bowlers are born, batsmen are made.'
And, thus, you want to protect them from injury through overuse.
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Bangladesh Makes History?
England won, ending 75 years of Lord's discomfort. What more can one say? Well, a few things, but let's savour the moment, and turn instead, for today, to events in the Caribbean.
While I've been on hiatus, the fragile West Indian side, which seemed finally to be coming out of a long funk after battling stoutly in a drawn series against New Zealand and then beating England in the Caribbean, gradually fell to pieces again. They basically rolled over against almost the same England side. They reached the semifinals of the 20/20 World Championship, and had a slightly dispiriting one-day series against India. Then the Player's Association fell out with the Board, which has been making a lot of bad decisions lately.
Thus, a profoundly weakened side took the field against Bangladesh, who promptly beat them, twice. Now, I happen to think people underrate Bangladesh a little bit. They're not as good as those Zimbabwe sides of 1998 to 2001, but they're definitely in reach of the sides just above them on Test ladder.
In other words, for West Indies to field a second-string side against them is an idea not likely to end successfully. And that's what happened. Bangladesh took on a weak side and won not just a Test, but a whole series.
Was this good for Bangladesh cricket? I wouldn't like to say no, but it's a response worth considering. Was this the kind of humiliation that West Indies' cricket needs to shake up its house? Definitely not. Both sides in the dispute can blame the other for the debacle.
What makes matters worse, is that the ICC has no real sanction available to solve this problem by suspending West Indies' Test status until they get their house in order. The best West Indian players can look forward to Indian Premier League money, while others can play in England for the time being, so it's basically taking the players' side against the Board's, which would be inappropriate for the ICC.
Frankly, as an international sport, cricket is looking more and more of a shambles. Maybe the time has come for something like a cross between the English Premier League and the American system, with franchises around the world, playing T/20, while local associations administer some international five-day matches as a sideline. Those countries that want to have Test matches can fit them in around this 'Super League'.
But you know what? I think some cricket boards might find themselves without a franchise.
While I've been on hiatus, the fragile West Indian side, which seemed finally to be coming out of a long funk after battling stoutly in a drawn series against New Zealand and then beating England in the Caribbean, gradually fell to pieces again. They basically rolled over against almost the same England side. They reached the semifinals of the 20/20 World Championship, and had a slightly dispiriting one-day series against India. Then the Player's Association fell out with the Board, which has been making a lot of bad decisions lately.
Thus, a profoundly weakened side took the field against Bangladesh, who promptly beat them, twice. Now, I happen to think people underrate Bangladesh a little bit. They're not as good as those Zimbabwe sides of 1998 to 2001, but they're definitely in reach of the sides just above them on Test ladder.
In other words, for West Indies to field a second-string side against them is an idea not likely to end successfully. And that's what happened. Bangladesh took on a weak side and won not just a Test, but a whole series.
Was this good for Bangladesh cricket? I wouldn't like to say no, but it's a response worth considering. Was this the kind of humiliation that West Indies' cricket needs to shake up its house? Definitely not. Both sides in the dispute can blame the other for the debacle.
What makes matters worse, is that the ICC has no real sanction available to solve this problem by suspending West Indies' Test status until they get their house in order. The best West Indian players can look forward to Indian Premier League money, while others can play in England for the time being, so it's basically taking the players' side against the Board's, which would be inappropriate for the ICC.
Frankly, as an international sport, cricket is looking more and more of a shambles. Maybe the time has come for something like a cross between the English Premier League and the American system, with franchises around the world, playing T/20, while local associations administer some international five-day matches as a sideline. Those countries that want to have Test matches can fit them in around this 'Super League'.
But you know what? I think some cricket boards might find themselves without a franchise.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
I Don't Like Cricket
It's very frustrating trying to do sabermetric-style analysis for cricket. Basically, there is much more effort involved in trying to assemble statistics in a form suitable for doing a study than there is in baseball. CricInfo's Statsguru is a major step forward compared to the situation that confronted me during 2003-4 at the old site, but still I had a very instructive experience recently.
I wanted to do some projections for the 1968 American League season. It was quite easy to go to the Baseball Prospectus web site and download some stats to help me find the players I wanted to project, a simple cut-and-paste job into a .csv file. Then the Lahman Database makes it a simple matter to gather together stat lines for individual players. By contrast, a cricket study involves a Statsguru query followed by the laborious task of copying and pasting scorecards, then editing the data into a form suitable for doing the research. I can gradually build up a database with the information arranged in a way suited to me, but it really is a tedious prospect.
Just an excuse, really, for my long silence. But when are we going to get a cricket version of Retrosheet? If someone with some money would come forward, I could make a start. Until that happens, performance analysis in cricket is going to remain in the Dark Ages, relative to baseball.
I wanted to do some projections for the 1968 American League season. It was quite easy to go to the Baseball Prospectus web site and download some stats to help me find the players I wanted to project, a simple cut-and-paste job into a .csv file. Then the Lahman Database makes it a simple matter to gather together stat lines for individual players. By contrast, a cricket study involves a Statsguru query followed by the laborious task of copying and pasting scorecards, then editing the data into a form suitable for doing the research. I can gradually build up a database with the information arranged in a way suited to me, but it really is a tedious prospect.
Just an excuse, really, for my long silence. But when are we going to get a cricket version of Retrosheet? If someone with some money would come forward, I could make a start. Until that happens, performance analysis in cricket is going to remain in the Dark Ages, relative to baseball.
Sunday, 25 January 2009
The VisibleHand
Unlike Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', the very visible hand of IPL money is disrupting the ICC's world. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) needs to decide whether it wants to run cricket globally (which I think it does), or whether it is one member which must compromise with the requirements issued by the ICC.
However, it's not that simple, either.
Arguably, the BCCI is defending its turf against the Indian Cricket League, and needs the ICC's support in this. That's a decision that must be reached in conversations between the BCCI and the ICC. England and Australia, amongst others, should butt out, or at least do all their talking through the ICC, and not via the papers. This sort of press coverage is typically English, in that it stirs up a public controversy where there needn't be one, as a certain KP might attest.
If the BCCI needs to fend off the moneybags of the the Indian Cricket League, then it should fight them aggressively by running their competition at the same time.
If the ICC wants to control Twenty/20 cricket in the largest market (which it should), then it needs to work with the BCCI in accommodating its needs.
If England's cricket season clashes with the BCCI's IPL, then the England and Wales Cricket Board has a problem that ranks behind the ICC's, but is equivalent to the BCCI's. That becomes a money question, and the interest of the board with the bigger revenues must prevail.
So now you're left with the players' question of whether they prefer the money or the pride of competing for their 'country' (in quotes because of KP again). I'd be interested to see what an Australian cricketer would do faced with such a dilemma. That would tell you all you need to know.
Of course, if you employed a squad system for Tests, then the problem might well go away!
However, it's not that simple, either.
Arguably, the BCCI is defending its turf against the Indian Cricket League, and needs the ICC's support in this. That's a decision that must be reached in conversations between the BCCI and the ICC. England and Australia, amongst others, should butt out, or at least do all their talking through the ICC, and not via the papers. This sort of press coverage is typically English, in that it stirs up a public controversy where there needn't be one, as a certain KP might attest.
If the BCCI needs to fend off the moneybags of the the Indian Cricket League, then it should fight them aggressively by running their competition at the same time.
If the ICC wants to control Twenty/20 cricket in the largest market (which it should), then it needs to work with the BCCI in accommodating its needs.
If England's cricket season clashes with the BCCI's IPL, then the England and Wales Cricket Board has a problem that ranks behind the ICC's, but is equivalent to the BCCI's. That becomes a money question, and the interest of the board with the bigger revenues must prevail.
So now you're left with the players' question of whether they prefer the money or the pride of competing for their 'country' (in quotes because of KP again). I'd be interested to see what an Australian cricketer would do faced with such a dilemma. That would tell you all you need to know.
Of course, if you employed a squad system for Tests, then the problem might well go away!
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
This way...
madness lies.
What an awful idea. Does Bransgrove really think the Ashes series will retain importance if it is not part of a World Championship Test series? Does he think the all-competitive Ockers will give a monkeys about a series against some second-division England side?
If you ask me:
1) More T20, at international level. (Stop laughing at it; take away some of the 'razzmatazz' and you've got a good bite-sized game, completely different from Test/4-day.)
2) Less 50-over cricket, at all levels. (It's been overtaken by T20.)
3) More Tests. (And a squad system.)
But nobody ever does.
And Martin Lawrence is right. Live international cricket needs to be on free TV in the UK. It doesn't have to be a main terrestrial channel, but they've got quite a few digital ones they could play around with.
Having said that, though, the EWCB could do well to look at mlb.com, and think about streaming its matches over the Internet, for a fee, with full access to archives. Please throw in radio commentary, too, while you're at it.
What an awful idea. Does Bransgrove really think the Ashes series will retain importance if it is not part of a World Championship Test series? Does he think the all-competitive Ockers will give a monkeys about a series against some second-division England side?
If you ask me:
1) More T20, at international level. (Stop laughing at it; take away some of the 'razzmatazz' and you've got a good bite-sized game, completely different from Test/4-day.)
2) Less 50-over cricket, at all levels. (It's been overtaken by T20.)
3) More Tests. (And a squad system.)
But nobody ever does.
And Martin Lawrence is right. Live international cricket needs to be on free TV in the UK. It doesn't have to be a main terrestrial channel, but they've got quite a few digital ones they could play around with.
Having said that, though, the EWCB could do well to look at mlb.com, and think about streaming its matches over the Internet, for a fee, with full access to archives. Please throw in radio commentary, too, while you're at it.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Maestro Boycott Speaks:
Here, in the Daily Telegraph. I have to say that there is a consistent anti-Moores bias emerging here. The paper broke the story, Scyld Berry was for Pietersen, and now Boycott, a hero round here for his near-sabermetric understanding of the game on the field, comes out with a few choice anti-Moores comments.
It has to be said that the EWCB emerges with very little credit from all of this. They seem to have chosen Moores rather hurriedly - he was a pal of Hugh Morris, the managing director - then chose as captain a man who clearly didn't have much faith in Moores, but who fit a different criterion, unifying the captaincy of both the Test and One-Day sides. Then, the EWCB's man, Moores, gets summarily dumped when it gets a bit hot for the EWCB. If a Test side's quality is revealed from the top, no wonder England are in a bit of a downward spiral at the moment, since the board running the show seems to lack grit.
Living in England as I did for so many years, I did find that a chronic problem was what I call 'isolated decision-making'. This is the sense that you narrow a question down to its absolute core, applying Ockham's razor (and what country did that come from?). The board identified a problem in having separate captaincies, and solved it by selecting the player most likely to keep his place in both sides. Unfortunately, this isn't my preferred method of 'consequential decision-making' - the first decision is the crucial one, and all subsequent decisions must take this into account. After selecting Moores, the ability to work with Moores became a significant factor. As long as Pietersen can't work easily with Moores, better to live with the separate captaincies problem. It's something you learn from studying military history: lay down your logistics network first, then the conduct of operations fits into that template.
Maybe it's a bit early to believe the Australians are taking much interest in this at all. A scan of one paper shows they're busy patting themselves on the back for an excellent Test series. The English are obsessed with the Ashes, when they can't even get past the likes of India, South Africa and Sri Lanka. It's back to Ockham's razor - what's essential is beating Australia. But if I were an England commentator, I'd be more worried about what's going to happen in the West Indies.
It has to be said that the EWCB emerges with very little credit from all of this. They seem to have chosen Moores rather hurriedly - he was a pal of Hugh Morris, the managing director - then chose as captain a man who clearly didn't have much faith in Moores, but who fit a different criterion, unifying the captaincy of both the Test and One-Day sides. Then, the EWCB's man, Moores, gets summarily dumped when it gets a bit hot for the EWCB. If a Test side's quality is revealed from the top, no wonder England are in a bit of a downward spiral at the moment, since the board running the show seems to lack grit.
Living in England as I did for so many years, I did find that a chronic problem was what I call 'isolated decision-making'. This is the sense that you narrow a question down to its absolute core, applying Ockham's razor (and what country did that come from?). The board identified a problem in having separate captaincies, and solved it by selecting the player most likely to keep his place in both sides. Unfortunately, this isn't my preferred method of 'consequential decision-making' - the first decision is the crucial one, and all subsequent decisions must take this into account. After selecting Moores, the ability to work with Moores became a significant factor. As long as Pietersen can't work easily with Moores, better to live with the separate captaincies problem. It's something you learn from studying military history: lay down your logistics network first, then the conduct of operations fits into that template.
Maybe it's a bit early to believe the Australians are taking much interest in this at all. A scan of one paper shows they're busy patting themselves on the back for an excellent Test series. The English are obsessed with the Ashes, when they can't even get past the likes of India, South Africa and Sri Lanka. It's back to Ockham's razor - what's essential is beating Australia. But if I were an England commentator, I'd be more worried about what's going to happen in the West Indies.
Sunday, 4 January 2009
Grasping Raspings
The England set-up now looks more like Pakistan's than Australia's. For an England fan, it is very disappointing to see what is happening, especially on the verge of an Ashes series with a vulnerable-looking Australia. I'll do a quick tour of some of the press coverage on the current spat between captain Kevin Pietersen and coach Peter Moores.
Scyld Berry openly takes Pietersen's side. Then he goes on to say 'as [Vaughan] has done it before, he is – at 34 – far, far likelier to perform again than Ian Bell (502 runs against Australia at 25) or Owais Shah, or anyone else currently playing, bar Pietersen.' You fail. Sabermetrics hasn't told us much of anything about the aging curve in cricketers. It's just wishful thinking.
John Stern has more of a 'plague on both your houses' approach, yet subtly indicts Moores with failures on the playing field, lack of influence on the players and a want of tactical thinking.
Nasser Hussain clumsily expresses the view that EWCB boss Hugh Morris must make the two work together or else Moores has to go.
The BBC quotes David Gower basically saying Pietersen's going to win if it comes to an outright choice between him and Moores.
Stephen Brenkley, at The Independent, gives a thoughtful summary of the problem.
However, Peter Hayter implies that Pietersen has given an ultimatum, and that the captain is not the first one to have problems with Moores.
It's all pretty unsightly to the bystander, but the reality is that a mistake was made in selecting Pietersen as captain, since all this talk about a 'clear the air' meeting with Moores at the start of his captaincy suggests the possibility of trouble was there for all to see. Moores has the moral high ground, since he was there first.
No-one ever listens to me about anything, but I think the only decent solution would be for both Moores and Pietersen to resign. Pietersen's sort of ultimatum has to be resisted (it would be even better if they sacked him anyway), but the general tenor of press comment suggests Moores has lost the confidence of the media. This is not good in this day and age, and it would only be a matter of time before they 'got' him. I'd even go so far as to say that the sympathy to Pietersen is probably down to the fact that journos know he's still going to be in the side, even if he's not captain, so they'll still need a quote from him now and then. Whereas Moores generally seems rather reticent around the press, so nothing gained there.
However, I think the heart of the matter appears in, of all places, the Sunday People, normally little more than a football comic. Right at the end.
Scyld Berry openly takes Pietersen's side. Then he goes on to say 'as [Vaughan] has done it before, he is – at 34 – far, far likelier to perform again than Ian Bell (502 runs against Australia at 25) or Owais Shah, or anyone else currently playing, bar Pietersen.' You fail. Sabermetrics hasn't told us much of anything about the aging curve in cricketers. It's just wishful thinking.
John Stern has more of a 'plague on both your houses' approach, yet subtly indicts Moores with failures on the playing field, lack of influence on the players and a want of tactical thinking.
Nasser Hussain clumsily expresses the view that EWCB boss Hugh Morris must make the two work together or else Moores has to go.
The BBC quotes David Gower basically saying Pietersen's going to win if it comes to an outright choice between him and Moores.
Stephen Brenkley, at The Independent, gives a thoughtful summary of the problem.
However, Peter Hayter implies that Pietersen has given an ultimatum, and that the captain is not the first one to have problems with Moores.
It's all pretty unsightly to the bystander, but the reality is that a mistake was made in selecting Pietersen as captain, since all this talk about a 'clear the air' meeting with Moores at the start of his captaincy suggests the possibility of trouble was there for all to see. Moores has the moral high ground, since he was there first.
No-one ever listens to me about anything, but I think the only decent solution would be for both Moores and Pietersen to resign. Pietersen's sort of ultimatum has to be resisted (it would be even better if they sacked him anyway), but the general tenor of press comment suggests Moores has lost the confidence of the media. This is not good in this day and age, and it would only be a matter of time before they 'got' him. I'd even go so far as to say that the sympathy to Pietersen is probably down to the fact that journos know he's still going to be in the side, even if he's not captain, so they'll still need a quote from him now and then. Whereas Moores generally seems rather reticent around the press, so nothing gained there.
However, I think the heart of the matter appears in, of all places, the Sunday People, normally little more than a football comic. Right at the end.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Urbi et Orbi: the Mess That Is Test Cricket
Test cricket, as an organized sport, is in a mess. Ultimately, it's down to the problem of adapting a structure that was built on the foundation of an amateur ethos to an entertainment industry. Leisurely activities punctuated by lunch and tea are giving way to a four-hour Twenty/20 razzmatazz as the sport tries to keep up with a CGI world.
My gloomy mood is triggered by the sad cases of three Test nations all in the news recently: Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Bangladesh. They are each different problems, but the effect on the Test arena is the same. At the root of all this is a struggle between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on the one hand, and Cricket Australia (CA) and the England and Wales Cricket Board (EWCB) on the other.
Zimbabwe is a soap opera that has run and run. Nor does it show any signs of stopping soon, as sore loser journos try to widen the crisis. Zimbabwe itself suspended Test play in January 2006, in recognition of a growing political crisis at home that had disrupted its ability to field a competitive Test side. At the root of the problem is the economic crisis in the country, a subject that apart from the acknowledgment that it exists warrants no further treatment in this forum. The reason it must be acknowledged, though, is that it is having an impact on the treatment of the players. In the forefront of the international response to the situation, however, are the EWCB and CA. Both are serving as arms of government policy, as both countries' governments have issues with Zimbabwe's president, Robert Mugabe, and have sought to 'quarantine' Zimbabwe officials. The BCCI, by contrast, has opposed drastic action. The trouble is, until Zimbabwe Cricket can reach financial arrangements with Zimbabwe players that are satisfactory to the latter, there seems little point rushing them back into the Test arena. I think we're still a few years away from such a permanent solution, and until the BCCI, EWCB and CA can get a consensus on how to handle the situation, Zimbabwe's stuck in this purgatory. The BCCI has won an ally here.
Pakistan is in the same situation as Zimbabwe in that it can't get a game. Nobody particularly wants to play them at home, and the difficult situation in the country is reflected in a turbulent administration of cricket. The whole story of Pakistan cricket in 2008 is of controversy. Finally, Sri Lanka agrees to go after the BCCI pulls out, resulting in all kinds of wild speculation. As with Zimbabwe, until the political problems afflicting Pakistan are resolved, it seems unlikely things will run smoothly for the country in the world of cricket. In the mean time, Pakistan has used alternative venues before, and maybe it should make a virtue of necessity. That at least might get them a few matches with other teams. But probably not with India. The BCCI will follow government policy for the foreseeable future. We'll have to wait and see if the Pakistan Cricket Board starts making common cause with the EWCB and CA, so long as its kept away from the valuable Indian market.
People don't want to play Bangladesh for different reasons, but the effect is the same. Its Test status is endangered. Similarly, as in the other two cases, part of the problem can be laid at Bangladesh's feet. For whatever reason, after eight years they are still not particularly competitive at the Test level. I've heard it said, by New Zealand radio commentators, that they don't play enough first-class cricket at home. Maybe. I don't have an easy recipe, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) opted to focus on the One-Day game. The BCCI is relatively uninterested in hosting them for Tests, even though they are required to by the ICC's Future Tour Programme (FTP), but will happily play ODIs.
Now, there's the rub. Suppose we get to the review of the FTP, and India still refuse to host Bangladesh. What's the ICC to do? The BCCI is by far the richest cricket organization in the world, and most countries can't afford not to tour there. The BCCI likes to wield its clout, and sees no reason to respect the spiritual home of cricket in the EWCB, nor the dominant nation in the field in the shape of CA.
Yet, in spite of all three of the major players in world cricket by word or deed declaring in favour of revoking Bangladesh's Test status, I don't see it happening. Quite probably the recent statements by the EWCB and CA are a way of putting pressure on the BCCI to host Bangladesh. Yet the BCCI is unlikely to join the EWCB and CA in questioning Bangladesh's Test status given that it can easily influence the vote of the BCB in the ICC. My money is on India both not hosting Bangladesh and not agreeing to end the Test status of that country. And so the mess will continue.
My gloomy mood is triggered by the sad cases of three Test nations all in the news recently: Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Bangladesh. They are each different problems, but the effect on the Test arena is the same. At the root of all this is a struggle between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on the one hand, and Cricket Australia (CA) and the England and Wales Cricket Board (EWCB) on the other.
Zimbabwe is a soap opera that has run and run. Nor does it show any signs of stopping soon, as sore loser journos try to widen the crisis. Zimbabwe itself suspended Test play in January 2006, in recognition of a growing political crisis at home that had disrupted its ability to field a competitive Test side. At the root of the problem is the economic crisis in the country, a subject that apart from the acknowledgment that it exists warrants no further treatment in this forum. The reason it must be acknowledged, though, is that it is having an impact on the treatment of the players. In the forefront of the international response to the situation, however, are the EWCB and CA. Both are serving as arms of government policy, as both countries' governments have issues with Zimbabwe's president, Robert Mugabe, and have sought to 'quarantine' Zimbabwe officials. The BCCI, by contrast, has opposed drastic action. The trouble is, until Zimbabwe Cricket can reach financial arrangements with Zimbabwe players that are satisfactory to the latter, there seems little point rushing them back into the Test arena. I think we're still a few years away from such a permanent solution, and until the BCCI, EWCB and CA can get a consensus on how to handle the situation, Zimbabwe's stuck in this purgatory. The BCCI has won an ally here.
Pakistan is in the same situation as Zimbabwe in that it can't get a game. Nobody particularly wants to play them at home, and the difficult situation in the country is reflected in a turbulent administration of cricket. The whole story of Pakistan cricket in 2008 is of controversy. Finally, Sri Lanka agrees to go after the BCCI pulls out, resulting in all kinds of wild speculation. As with Zimbabwe, until the political problems afflicting Pakistan are resolved, it seems unlikely things will run smoothly for the country in the world of cricket. In the mean time, Pakistan has used alternative venues before, and maybe it should make a virtue of necessity. That at least might get them a few matches with other teams. But probably not with India. The BCCI will follow government policy for the foreseeable future. We'll have to wait and see if the Pakistan Cricket Board starts making common cause with the EWCB and CA, so long as its kept away from the valuable Indian market.
People don't want to play Bangladesh for different reasons, but the effect is the same. Its Test status is endangered. Similarly, as in the other two cases, part of the problem can be laid at Bangladesh's feet. For whatever reason, after eight years they are still not particularly competitive at the Test level. I've heard it said, by New Zealand radio commentators, that they don't play enough first-class cricket at home. Maybe. I don't have an easy recipe, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) opted to focus on the One-Day game. The BCCI is relatively uninterested in hosting them for Tests, even though they are required to by the ICC's Future Tour Programme (FTP), but will happily play ODIs.
Now, there's the rub. Suppose we get to the review of the FTP, and India still refuse to host Bangladesh. What's the ICC to do? The BCCI is by far the richest cricket organization in the world, and most countries can't afford not to tour there. The BCCI likes to wield its clout, and sees no reason to respect the spiritual home of cricket in the EWCB, nor the dominant nation in the field in the shape of CA.
Yet, in spite of all three of the major players in world cricket by word or deed declaring in favour of revoking Bangladesh's Test status, I don't see it happening. Quite probably the recent statements by the EWCB and CA are a way of putting pressure on the BCCI to host Bangladesh. Yet the BCCI is unlikely to join the EWCB and CA in questioning Bangladesh's Test status given that it can easily influence the vote of the BCB in the ICC. My money is on India both not hosting Bangladesh and not agreeing to end the Test status of that country. And so the mess will continue.
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Quo Vadis, Andrea?
Some members of the Australian press are in an uproar over their defeat by South Africa at home. Poor Matthew Hayden is under particular pressure, even though my research suggests this season is an outlier for him. The question of there being 'too much cricket' has raised its ugly head again.
I say that selectors should take more of a squad-based approach, and we should have even more cricket. Why not five Tests between South Africa and Australia? Cricket Australia certainly has the depth to exploit longer series, if the journos would put away their 'best XI' attitude. Take a leaf out of baseball's book, use more players and play more. Having a rest for a match should not be a badge of shame, especially for the bowlers. Sabermetrics applied to cricket can help all countries look for talent in their domestic scenes.
I say that selectors should take more of a squad-based approach, and we should have even more cricket. Why not five Tests between South Africa and Australia? Cricket Australia certainly has the depth to exploit longer series, if the journos would put away their 'best XI' attitude. Take a leaf out of baseball's book, use more players and play more. Having a rest for a match should not be a badge of shame, especially for the bowlers. Sabermetrics applied to cricket can help all countries look for talent in their domestic scenes.
Monday, 29 December 2008
Sweet 16?
Australia haven't lost a home series since this one. What I find interesting about that series is that the Australian team definitely appears to be at a moment in transition there. You see some familiar names from the 1990s mixed in with a few from the 1980s. Suppose the Ockers lose tomorrow, in the same 'season' as dropping a series in India. You'd really have to admit that we might be at a similar moment for this Australian side. In five years' time how many of the current Australians will still be in the team? If the answer is less than five, I suspect this wouldn't be the last series Australia lose at home for another 16 years.
Sunday, 21 December 2008
'There's no way...'
'...they're the dominant side they used to be.' -- Ian Chappell on the current Australian team.
Chappell's CricInfo podcast is worth a listen, not so much because he tells us useful stuff about the 1st Test in Perth, but because of what he tells us about the Australian psyche.
On three occasions in a five-minute podcast he implies that somehow the South Africans have a sense of moral inferiority to the Australians. He also tells us that the problem with the Australian team is in the bowling. Let's connect the dots here.
As I said a couple of times on the Old Blog, Australia during the McGrath-Warne years had a pair of bowlers who are among the best in the history of cricket. Providence never deals the cards fairly, so cricket fans can't complain about that. However, particularly during the late Waugh years, Australian cricket seemed to lose sight of how lucky they'd been. There was a disgraceful sense of entitlement in their superiority -- a moral entitlement. There seemed to be a feeling that they were better because Australian cricketers had innately better characters, not because they had two all-time-great bowlers working with an excellent batting order. Worse still, other countries and other captains fell for this, most notably in my experience Nasser Hussein.
I'm not counting the Ockers out in this series. Graeme Smith should be very careful about ensuring his team prepare mentally for the next match as if it were the first in a two-Test series, with all to play for. But, really, anything that helps the Australians to remember that, as good as they are, they aren't morally better than all the other ICC Test cricket sides, is all right by me.
Chappell's CricInfo podcast is worth a listen, not so much because he tells us useful stuff about the 1st Test in Perth, but because of what he tells us about the Australian psyche.
On three occasions in a five-minute podcast he implies that somehow the South Africans have a sense of moral inferiority to the Australians. He also tells us that the problem with the Australian team is in the bowling. Let's connect the dots here.
As I said a couple of times on the Old Blog, Australia during the McGrath-Warne years had a pair of bowlers who are among the best in the history of cricket. Providence never deals the cards fairly, so cricket fans can't complain about that. However, particularly during the late Waugh years, Australian cricket seemed to lose sight of how lucky they'd been. There was a disgraceful sense of entitlement in their superiority -- a moral entitlement. There seemed to be a feeling that they were better because Australian cricketers had innately better characters, not because they had two all-time-great bowlers working with an excellent batting order. Worse still, other countries and other captains fell for this, most notably in my experience Nasser Hussein.
I'm not counting the Ockers out in this series. Graeme Smith should be very careful about ensuring his team prepare mentally for the next match as if it were the first in a two-Test series, with all to play for. But, really, anything that helps the Australians to remember that, as good as they are, they aren't morally better than all the other ICC Test cricket sides, is all right by me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
