West Indies vs Sri Lanka, 1st Test, 5th Day

I have resumed taking a more intense interest in cricket, and in the last couple of weeks have made a few comments over at Reddit, on the r/cricket reddit. (I did the same last summer, but without any lasting effect, so I do not promise to have resumed regular posts.)

The rest of this is a re-post of a slightly edited version of a post I made over there.

This all started when I checked CricViz' calculation of 'who was winning', against my own rather more nebulous 'Test Win Expectancy' model during the Mendis-Matthews partnership. Going by the match position, I thought Sri Lanka had grounds for optimism, even to the point that I suspected CricViz was doing something badly wrong. Having studied the data a bit more thoroughly in the light of subsequent events, I have to set my optimism for Sri Lanka's chances aside altogether. Basically, I had overrated the batting resources remaining to Sri Lanka. The actual target is not unattainable, on the face of it, but one wouldn't want to start from here.

In bald terms, Sri Lanka need two century partnerships between Mendis, Dickwella and a returned Chandimal. (A 50 from Dilruwan Perera would reduced the pressure on those three, but we're still talking about three big partnerships.)

The wickets of Kusal Perera and Silva fell at scores below par, while the Mendis-Matthews partnership was well above par. However, given the mammoth number of the target, Sri Lanka need multiple wickets to go well above par. Basically Mendis has already done his bit, and it is expecting too much of him to add substantially to his current score. (It could happen, of course, to the delight of Sri Lanka's supporters.)

So, now we are down to an uncertain Chandimal and Dickwella, who has a Test average of 33 and no centuries to his name. With those resources, it's hard to feel any optimism that 200 runs could be scored over the next two wickets. Of course, tails can wag, but the Sri Lankan tail-enders will be hard-pressed to make 77 runs between them, going by their averages, which make James Anderson look good.

As I suspected, and one can read on Reddit, Silva's wicket was crucial. My mistake was not to weight it heavily enough in subsequent posts. CricViz' 89% chance of a WIndies' victory doesn't look so far-fetched.

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.

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.

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.

West Indies vs England Test Batting

In between posts on the Napier test I offer some of my Series Score data for the batsmen during recent Tests between England and the West Indies.

England

Strauss      21
Collingwood  18
Pietersen    10
Prior         8
Bopara        8
Ambrose       4
Cook          2
Sidebottom   -6
Bell         -6
Swan         -6
Anderson     -7
Panesar     -10
Flintoff    -12
Harmison    -13
Shah        -14
Broad       -24

Seeing Bell at -6 and Shah at -14 tells you that England need to think again, as that Scottish song puts it. And one really wants a better performance that that from Pietersen. Frankly, I fear the worst for this England team this summer. They'll probably be able to exploit home advantage enough against the West Indies that they'll get revenge in the first series, but at the moment I see them getting massacred by Australia.

West Indies

Sarwan       47
Chanderpaul   7
Gaye          6
Ramdin        1
Nash         -1
Baker        -5
Marshall     -5
Simmons      -6
Taylor       -9
DS Smith    -10
Benn        -13
RO Hinds    -14
Edwards     -22
Powell      -22

It was Sarwan that won it on the batting front. Ramdin also deserves some credit for taking the pressure off Gayle and Chanderpaul. One might consider Nash disappointing, but a -1 is still moderately useful

Thinking strategically, West Indies really need another batsman, and probably two. Chanderpaul will not be around forever, and who is going to take his place? I suspect his career will end abruptly. One series he'll stink, then he'll stink again, but not having an alternative they'll be tempted to keep putting him in so he'll stink some more, putting an ugly punctuation mark on a wonderful career.

Missing, in action

Sorry not to have posted for a while. Baseball season is approaching, and I've been doing sabermetrics in that field, instead of the more needful realm of cricket, where we hear a lot of unsabermetric nonsense still. I'm nearing the end of the preseason baseball work, so I should resume posting here with more frequency.

I'll start with a post based on watching the first day's play of the Third Test between the West Indies and England. Some comments by Michael Holding really 'got my goat'. He was complaining, towards the end of the day's play, that Edwards and Powell and Taylor hadn't bowled enough overs.

I'm still in two minds about Chris Gayle's captaincy. I've already characterized him privately as the anti-Nasser Hussain. Nasser, God bless him, was a fidgety captain in the field. If something wasn't succeeding the way he anticipated, he'd tinker with it, even though it wasn't necessarily failing. Often, he'd make matters worse. Gayle, by contrast, is possibly too laid back. Sometimes he should press a little more.

It's pretty clear that there is little in the pitch for the bowlers. So what's the point of sending your quicks out there to toil in the midday heat for little or no reward? Far better to bring on the spinners. If there's nothing there for your chaps on the first day, chances are there won't be much for their chaps later on. We know that in baseball pitchers can be driven into injury by overwork, and I'm fairly confident based on limited work I have done that the same applies to bowlers. Gayle was being pretty shrewd. He spared his best bowlers needless work, and possibly ensured they are less likely to suffer injury.

On other point, Holding said that Pietersen was capable of destroying an attack, where Strauss wasn't. Excuse me? Strauss had just batted all day, taking more than 270 deliveries, and scored over 150. Think about that - 270 deliveries is over 40 overs. That's seeing off two bowlers, bowling all day, without giving up a wicket. And then they have to come back and bowl the next day, when they won't be as fresh.

I shouldn't have taken a break. There's such a lot of nonsense being spoken.

Looking Forward to: England's Tour of the West Indies 2

My long-promised Sabermetric Cricket West Indies' batting projections:

Gayle       39.22     28.83
Marshall    32.29     20.58
Sarwan      42.38     44.42
Chanderpaul 48.64     51.63
Nash        31.72     16.18
Ramdin      16.84     14.39
Taylor      16.03     13.66
Powell       7.34      6.77
Edwards      3.41      5.57
Benn         9.17      6.39
Baker        0         0.75

The first column is unregressed, the second regressed. There's not a lot of data for some of these players, so confidences are poor. I also went with four seamers and a spinner, but I think I'd rather have an extra batsman. Gayle and Nash between them could pick up the bowling slack. In some cases I prefer the unregressed figure (eg, Nash) and in others the regressed (eg, Marshall).

The unregressed order produces an innings total of 247.
The regressed order produces an innings total of 209.
The average of the two is 228.

286, 225 and 256 were England's counterparts. It's too close for my comfort as an England fan, especially if West Indies can add another batsman in place of one of the bowlers.

Remember, all these numbers are a batsman's anticipated performance against an average set of bowlers. I'll start work on the bowling sides post haste, and hopefully I'll be able to give adjusted figures before the first Test starts.

Bat or Ball?

My Level 1 Series Scores are calculated 'out of context'. Level 2 scores attempt to adjust the values of wickets taken and runs scored according to the average standard of the series. Level 1 scores have an element of adjustment, but only to runs scored. Thus, the ratio of total points allocated to runs scored will offer some indication of whether a series was dominated by the batsmen or the bowlers. A high ratio of runs scored means the batting was dominant, a lower one the bowling.

Here are the ratios for the 'Christmas Tests', which I have been analysing over the last week or so:

Ban v SrL   1.22
NZl v WIn   1.18
Aus v RSA   1.16

I'm surprised that the New Zealand series with West Indies was more 'bat' than the Australia vs South Africa showdown.

West Indies XI

Stand by for a posting blizzard today, as I do a bit of catching up on my cricket.

We've got a West Indies' squad named for the Tests against England now. As I had suggested, retain Marshall and drop Chattergoon, if you've got an alternative. Gayle is an effective bowling option, so they could, in theory, go with an extra batsman. With Ramdin's rickety recent record, I think I'd load up on batsmen and ask Gayle to take the strain when bowling. England, I reckon, can be taken by this West Indies team, provided the chaps in Maroon Caps can stay in long enough. The question mark hangs over Baker, who is inexperienced. From a sabermetric standpoint, his economy is a little high for no wickets, but he should take a few more as he gets more cricket. Then we'll be in a better position to make judgements.

I'm still working on batting projections for West Indies, by the way. I don't have all the data I'd like for West Indies' domestic matches, so I'm struggling.

New Zealand vs West Indies Tests Reviewed: Batting

Series Scores first:

Gayle (WIn)        37
Chanderpaul (WIn)  20
Ryder (NZl)        20
McIntosh (NZl)     14
Nash (WIn)         13
Flynn (NZl)        12
Taylor  (WIn)       8
Vettori (NZl)       0
McCullum (NZl)    - 2
Gillespie (NZl)   - 2
Taylor (NZl)      - 4
Patel (NZl)       - 5
How (NZl)         - 5
Baker (WIn)       - 5
Chattergoon (WIn) - 6
Marshall (WIn)    - 7
Benn (WIn)        - 9
O'Brien (NZl)     - 9
Mills (NZl)       -10
Powell (WIn)      -10
Edwards (WIn)     -12
Sarwan (WIn)      -12
Ramdin (WIn)      -12
Franklin (NZl)    -13

The traditional Black Cap strategy for success involves someone like McCullum coming out and blasting the ball over the boundaries for a fifty in short time. Prior to that, they have three or four batsmen come in who just block and block and block, not worrying about the run rate. The gives the blaster the chance to take advantage of an older ball and tired bowlers. Unfortunately, How couldn't quite pull off his planned role, while Ross Taylor didn't defend his wicket well enough, either. Taylor probably wasn't supposed to defend, but How's short stays at the crease left him exposed. They might do better to switch Ryder and Taylor, but given Ryder's temperament that might not be such a good idea, either. Vettori did well. A nought score for a bowler puts him in all-rounder territory. McCullum needs to get rid of that minus.

You might think a 2 from a wicketkeeper like McCullum is not a good score, but look at Ramdin! He's no different to a rabbit coming in at 11 nowadays. While Gayle is man of the series, West Indies' supporters will be looking at Sarwan and thinking about what might have been. His failures were quite disturbing for someone who projects as well as he does. If he gets back on track, it could be 'watch out England'. Chattergoon and Marshall are interchangeable as batsmen, and not really good enough on this showing. However, Marshall's done good work in the field. Plus, he's young, and West Indies' pathetic development programme means he's probably better off getting Test time. I might, just might, consider moving Marshall down the order a little bit. He shows a tendency to want to blast the ball.

On the evidence of this series, I see a rosier future for West Indies than New Zealand at the Test level. Which is sad, because Vettori is an impressive captain, and the Black Caps are the Thinking Fan's Side.

New Zealand vs West Indies Tests Reviewed: Bowling

Bowlers ranked by series scores

Edwards (WIn)    20
Vettori (NZl)    19
O'Brien (NZl)    10
Patel (NZl)       8
Powell (WIn)      1
Gayle (WIn)       1
Ryder (NZl)     - 1
Nash (WIn)      - 3
Mills (NZl)     - 4
Taylor (WIn)    - 4
Benn (WIn)      -10
Franklin (NZl)  -11
Baker (WIn)     -12
Gillespie (NZl) -15

Edwards had a good tour. He was a bit expensive, but took wickets at an impressive rate. Powell was a bit better at preventing runs, but more than a bit worse at taking wickets. However, if he can improve even a little bit on taking wickets, without getting worse at preventing runs, he would give West Indies a very good pair of bowlers, especially with Taylor also flirting with the 'at least useful' category. Nash offered more support, but it's hard to make too much of such a short series, in the light of his relative lack of international experience. The point being that given the immense frailty of the West Indies' batting order, they desperately need a trio of average-or-better wicket takers in order to have any chance in Test matches.

New Zealand makes a case for bowling two spinners against the West Indies. Vettori and Patel amassed 27 points, which is equivalent to one exceptional bowler. England should take note, especially since there is a history of useful spin bowling on West Indies' tracks. Apart from that, you really have to be concerned at the state of New Zealand's bowling. Against a lineup of two batsmen and nine also-rans, their pace options scored all of -21. It could be that West Indies are just that much better against pace - more food for English thoughts - but it could also be that New Zealand pace bowlers are not very good. Although the Black Caps survived a drop this series, on the evidence of the bowling I don't fancy their long-term ability to keep above the Maroon Caps.

'Our Best Batsman'

So says Chris Gayle, of Shivnarine Chanderpaul. He's moving him up to open the next ODI against New Zealand. I seem to recall Chanderpaul did some opening in Test matches, too. In fact, somewhere on the old site there's an entry about moving Chanderpaul up in the West Indies' batting order, but I can't find it right now and I have work to do.

Meanwhile, here's his Test record as an opener, and here's his record opening against New Zealand.

First-Class in West Indies

First-class cricket outside of Tests deserves a better following than I've seen it get in England (he says, sounding like recently-MBE'd Christopher Martin-Jenkins). The Australian game appears to be of exceptional standard, for example, so anyone doing well there ought to translate into Test cricket with ease. For those of you who would like to follow such things, the West Indies begins its four-day 'domestic' tournament today. The excellent Fazeer Mohammed gives a sense of the mood in the islands at the moment, of course focusing on the coming visit by England.

Fixtures starting today:
Windward Islands vs Guyana
Barbados vs Trinidad & Tobago
Leeward Islands vs Jamaica

You can 'watch' them all on CricInfo.

Of course, with the West Indies Cricket Board lacking a tournament sponsor, the marketing of these matches has suffered. So I'm doing my bit here.

'Catches Win Matches 1'

Having a message session with a friend last night, I commented that West Indies' targets for New Zealand's first innings were to bowl them out in around 80 overs or less, for a score of around 250 (which can be interpreted as not much higher than 275). As things stand at close of the second day, it looks unlikely that my stern targets will be achieved. Certainly, the idea of getting 8 more wickets in 12 overs is implausible in the context of the usual shoddy standards of West Indies' fielding. However, there's still a small chance that the bowlers can make the runs target, so the true West Indies' fan won't give up hope yet.

So, let's turn yesterday's exercise around. What happens when New Zealand, batting second, puts on around 120-150 for the second wicket, starting from 20 or less? There's one example, a 1981 test between New Zealand and India. This ended in a draw.

Yesterday I showed lots of examples of West Indies' winning from the situation that Chanderpaul and Nash's stand had put them. They also drew a couple. So, all in all, this is quite a balanced Test in a series where there's all still to play for. But I think all eyes (except those of India and England fanboys) will be on Perth once play starts there.

Chanderpaul ad Pons Sublicius*

Watching a good part of Shivnarine Chanderpaul's as yet unbeaten 100 made me wonder. When West Indies, batting first, experience an opening order collapse, then have a partnership of around 150, how often do they go on to win the game? Way back in 2004, we created a definition of a cricket collapse. If you don't want to click on the link, the definition is 60 runs or fewer scored over three or more partnerships, with no individual total more than 35. I defined an openers' collapse as getting to the third wicket with 60 or less, or wickets two through four amounting to no more than 60. But more than that, I wanted to find innings very similar to Chanderpaul's as it stands right now. So I judged that as a final score between 50 and 100 (inclusive) and 113 to 224 balls faced. With the help of CricInfo's StatsGuru, I made a list of such occasions since 1965.

The first one doesn't quite qualify, since the openers went for 64, then a solid performance from Lloyd and Kallicharran helped West Indies on to a victory over England in 1973. It's Kallicharran's innings that is similar to Chanderpaul's.

Clive Lloyd did it to England again in 1981, when things were even worse. West Indies got as far as 65 for 4 when Lloyd dug in with Gomes for 154. In this case, Lloyd scored a bit too fast, Gomes a bit too slow.

It doesn't quite qualify, and we don't have complete balls faced statistics for this match in India, but a stand of 107 in 1983 by Gomes and Lloyd again is comparable to the feats of Chanderpaul and Brendan Nash.

Greenidge outlasted several partners until he and Dujon stopped the rot at Old Trafford in 1984. Dujon and Davis did pretty well, too.

This is another one that doesn't quite meet the parameters, but I thought was worthy of mention. In 1988 West Indies managed a measly score of 209 in the first innings at Lord's, 130 of which was down to a sixth wicket stand between Dujon and Logie.

Finally, Lara and Chanderpaul team up for 169 in 2005. That's from the CricInfo Information Age, so there's plenty to explore about that match.

But, really, I'm not blathering on like some almanac here. I'm trying to find out how West Indies won these matches. Those scorecards all show that in spite of some sterling work with the willow righting the ship, the bowlers had to hold the other team to fewer runs in usually at least 20 percent fewer overs. (The 1988 match against England at Lord's is the odd one out here, mainly, it looks like, thanks to Alan Lamb.) If those two conditions don't hold for West Indies at Napier, they'd better play for the draw.

*What's all this Latin about? Crikey, don't people read poetry any more? I think I've outlived my time.