News Links

6 August 2004

Take a Ladder

I've never been 100 per cent behind the ICC's Test Championship system. It's in the nature of cricket's distribution that teams don't meet frequently enough for an international test league to be practicable. With only eleven teams qualifying for Test status, it may seem plausible to have each play one another on a home-and-home basis during the course of a calendar year, but that's twenty matches, or almost one every other week. Can you imagine an itinerary of South Africa-England-West Indies-New Zealand over an eight-week period? I certainly wouldn't want to be a professional athlete under those circumstances.

So the ICC had little choice but to adopt a system similar to what it did. Little choice, but choice nonetheless. I've been more enthusiastic about the principal of a 'Test Ladder'. Before I hurt my back at the start of the year, I had planned to construct one. I've finally sat down to do it, starting from the ranking issued with the beginning of the ICC Test Championship in May 2001. It makes an interesting comparison.

I've adopted the following guidelines for the ladder. One team supplants a higher-ranked team by beating it in a Test series, and pushes down the teams newly below it. Each team scores points for its results: -1 for a home loss, 0 for an away loss, 1 for a draw, 2 for a home win, 3 for an away win. Each year is divided into two 'seasons', one running from April through September, the other October through March, with a series occurring in the 'season' in which the first day of the first Test falls. At the end of the season, the points accumulated are added up, and if a team has more points than the one immediately above it, it swaps places with that team. This process starts with the second-place team and works its way downwards, with the exception that a team beaten by the team above it in a series that season may not advance.

I don't believe it's a perfect system, nor better than the ICC (formerly Wisden) one. I could list its obvious faults, but I'll leave that to others. What I do think, though, is that it is better able than the ICC to spot a team which is getting stronger and will punish more quickly a team that is weakening. It does this by seriously punishing teams losing series against teams they ought to beat. So here’s the current Cricketing Sabermetrics' Test Ladder (points accumulated since April of this year in parenthesis):

As I said, it is an interesting comparison, more so if you know some of the history. Pakistan were languishing around the bottom until they leaped upwards after taking two-test series against New Zealand and South Africa. India replaced them until they beat them in the historic series that began in March. But prior to this both teams had been inconsistent, not doing at all well away from home. But, would you really argue with these rankings? England come out low, but all their recent conquests have not exactly been top-ranked teams. New Zealand were in third at one time, but their poor run since the last World Cup is reflected here. Zimbabwe are in danger of dropping below Bangladesh, but that's probably a fair reflection of their current disarray. South Africa is the only side that strikes me in an anomalous position, but then they shouldn't have lost to Pakistan!

Talking Sense

The England and Wales Cricket Board has got to be a strong contender for the award for the Least Effective Leader Among Sports Organizing Bodies in the world. I appear not to be alone in this belief, as reflected in a recent interview given to the Daily Telegraph newspaper by Neil Davidson, chairman of Leicestershire County Cricket. The ECB presented some proposals to reform the game, which to be honest was reformed not so long ago when the County Championship went to a two-division format. I don't agree with everything Neil Davidson has to say, but he's talking real sense when he argues there needs to be more floodlit cricket, and the existing four-day structure is working just fine. I part company with him on forty-overs cricket (bump it up to the international standard of fifty, please), but he's absolutely right when he says County cricket is the heart of the English game.

5 August 2004

Wasted Effort

I've only just learned that the International Cricket Council on July 23 announced the appointment of a chief executive to promote cricket in the United States. As is traditional for American cricket, an Englishman living in America has been put in charge. Forgive me ICC, but I think your money would be better spent on funding this Web site. What is really needed is a complete overhaul of cricket statistics, so the outsider can get a better grasp of what is going on in the game. Cricket will never succeed in America as a major sport. It is arguable whether soccer has succeeded, and that has a much bigger international base to work from in penetrating the U.S. market, plus millions of Latin Americans in places like L.A. and Texas (and even Iowa!) for whom soccer is possibly a more significant religion than the Pope's. I've certainly seen more soccer games on Galavision than Masses.

NSW to Nix SCG?

The Sydney Cricket Ground is being threatened with loss of its matches. The Olympic Stadium, which has already been a venue a couple of times, is by far the most likely threat as Cricket New South Wales is calling for tenders for a contract to host matches after the current contract with the SCG expires in September 2005. I dread to think what might happen if the disease of new stadia blackmail, as used by commissioner of baseball 'Bud' Selig, spreads outside of the United States. At least the SCG is not going quietly.

4 August 2004

Harmison Watch

Regular visitors to this site (who probably deserve a better service than I've been able to give) may recall this note (scroll to The Tall Guys) from last year. A commentator on one of the English broadcasters (okay, it was Ian Botham), suggested parallels between the West Indian greats Joel Garner and Curtly Ambrose and England's tall hope, Steve Harmison. Taking a statistical look, we thought there was a case to be answered. And, after a year, we thought to look again. Here are the key stats for all three players after twenty-one tests.

What's not apparent from the statistics (and rarely is), is against whom these figures were compiled. Garner and Ambrose faced Pakistan, Australia and England in their first twenty-one tests, plus New Zealand (Garner) and India (Ambrose). Harmison, by contrast, numbers plenty of Zimbabwean and Bangladeshi cricketers in his wicket haul. This is not really comparable, and Harmison has, in fact, not looked as good against what one might call the Original Seven of world cricket. He averaged 45.88 against South Africa last summer, and 50.55 against Australia during the last Ashes series. One has to go back to his 24.00 against India in the summer of 2002 to look for a good average against one of the Original Seven, prior to his rampage in the Caribbean earlier this year. And the Indian wicket he took were largely tailenders, with the exception of Sourav Ganguly.

Botham's a loyal team man; and it is worth bearing in mind that Harmison plays for County Durham, one of the clubs that features on Botham's career record in English County Cricket. His promotion of Harmison as an important weapon in England's attack needs to be seen in that context.

I wouldn't want to be quoted in support of an argument that Harmison is rubbish. But I do think that using Garner and Ambrose as yardsticks for this young Englishman who is still developing his skills is not altogether realistic. I think I'll be switching the Harmison Watch off.

3 August 2004

Grasping a Handful of Ashes

With two successive victories over West Indies following a series win over New Zealand, following a series win in West Indies, here in London the steady drumbeat of the Ashes tom-tom warns all Australia that the English are coming, with a long-awaited historic victory on their mind.

Well, maybe.

I've been scathing about the English (especially vis-à-vis the West Indians) in the past. And I'm not sold on them yet, either. This run of victories started after they omitted Harmison from the team and went down to defeat in Sri Lanka. I wouldn't want to say that Harmison's omission was the cause of defeat in Sri Lanka. But I would want to say that beating teams you ought to beat doesn't mean you are in with a chance to defeat the best in the world. And it seems I'm not alone in my view.

Let's review, briefly, the start of England's recent opposition. West Indies undoubtedly has a talented batting order, with any of Gayle, Sarwan, Chanderpaul, or Lara likely candidates to score centuries at the start of any match. There's also a Smith and a Jacobs who could bust out on any given day. These fellows are followed, however, by a long and weak tail, one that needn't delay us long in analysing. Furthermore, West Indies are presenting a bowling attack that is almost as untalented as the batting order is talented. So England bats enjoy a feast of runs, while a certain psychological frailty leads to occasional West Indian batting collapses. Not exactly a stern test in preparation for Australia.

Meanwhile, New Zealand came and went, and looked set to trouble England until the Black Caps' shallow bowling attack couldn't hold up their end of the deal.

There were question marks hanging over all these teams at the start of this year. Which was the best? It looks like the answer to that question is England, which comes as something of a surprise to me. England took some gambles, and they won. Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan should visit the roulette tables of Monte Carlo now, before their confidence trick runs into a serious test.

22 July 2004

Butcher on the Block

England recently referred to him as their most consistent player. Well, since this time last summer after getting a century in the third Test against South Africa when we wrote our piece on him, his highest score is 77. That may do for a number 6, but the number 3 is a privileged position. The problem with moving Butcher to 6 though is he seems to prefer pace bowling to spin. He's scored runs against the southern African teams who lack a spinner, Sri Lanka before Murali learned how to bowl to lefthanders and hard-working innings against the WIndies who played without a specialist spinner. Vettori seems to have him worked out and Butcher's only half-century in the last series against New Zealand came in the game when Vettori was injured. Butcher's also hurt his back so his value as a novelty bowler has gone too.

(Windies tour this year: his average 59.2 is almost the same as his highest score 61. The two not outs help to boost his average: 58, 61, 46*, 5, 13*, 52, 61)

When you look at his year-by-year averages it masks a recent decline. His average last year was flattered by Zimbabwe runs and a good start against RSA early to mid-summer 03. (We often prefer to look at innings average rather than batting average which sees his numbers drop significantly to 30.84 in 04.) In his last 11 Tests his batting average is about 31 which is below his career batting average of 35. On the other hand, the runs he got in Windies were hard runs - dogged innings in low-scoring Tests. Had he not been injured, I don't think I would have ejected him just yet, but now Key is in the runs is it worth bringing Butcher straight back? A year ago, as I discovered in the last article on him, Butcher's contribution was vital to England's success. With Thorpe back in the team and Strauss making the transition to Test cricket look easy, that is patently no longer the case. Butcher's value as a left-hander is also diminished as there are three other southpaws in the top 5.

He's like a spare opener which is a defensive ploy. If England want to kick on to join the top-table teams, I'd suggest they need a more prolific run getter at 3 and to my eye - which one can't always rely on - Mark seems to have gone backwards as a batsman over the last 12 months. While it is good to see him grinding out Hussain-like innings, I preferred the fluency of two or three years ago when he would get out for 40 or so looking like he would bat all day. Key in nine Tests has already matched Butcher's number of scores over 150 (1) and with Butcher out of the team, England could soon have all 5 batsmen and a wicketkeeper averaging in the 40s (not to mention Flintoff's average headed in the right direction too). I wonder when England last had so many runs to play with.