It seems the name of the well-known spinner referred to in the article I linked to on 10th September has been revealed. None other than Murali Muralitharan himself, who now finds his name linked to a possible betting ring. It makes a change from complaints about his bowling action being the main reason for his name making the scandal sheets.

Meanwhile, such is the concern about match-fixing in cricket, that even a routine visit by ICC anti-corruption police can seem to be something else.

13 September 2005
Shaking the Ladder

The conclusion of the 2005 Ashes series has shaken the Cricketing Sabermetrics' Test Ladder. Here is how it stands at the moment:

England (4)
Australia (0)
India
Pakistan (1)
South Africa
Sri Lanka (2)
New Zealand (2)
West Indies (1)
Bangladesh (0)
Zimbabwe (-1)

What is more unsettling is that, given the way the system works, Australia are going to subside further at the end of the month, paying the penalty of a five-test series against a top side at a time when India and other sides are locked in combat with the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. England faces two tough series, both on the subcontinent, so I suspect we'll be seeing a very different order come next March.
12 September 2005
Bullied in Bulawayo

I promised to write about the Zimbabwe team, but to be honest it need not detain us long. They've just finished a test series against New Zealand. New Zealand are a mid-table side. To be blunt, New Zealand embarrassed Zimbabwe in the two-Test series. Zimbabwe's bowling average was nearly twice what the series average for the two teams was. They had some penetration, with a respectable strike rate of 72.18, but one wonders how much that was down to the New Zealand batsmen taking risks. An economy of 4.48 suggests they were flinging the bat about with some abandon. The best bowler for Zimbabwe was Heath Streak, while Keith Dabengwa proved usefully economical. The batting, however, is what makes one truly weep for Zimbabwe cricket. Not one batsman could average a Bowling Overs per Innings of 12. Look at this list:

Name                      BO/I
Taibu                    11.38
Taylor                   10
Ferreira                 8.25
Masakadza                5.79
Mahwire                  5.58
Carlisle                 4.67
Dabengwa                 3.58
Wishart                  3.42
Mpofu                    2.63
Cremer                   2.58
Ebrahim                  1.63
Streak                   1.42

The retention of Ebrahim is particularly egregious, considering he is an opener. Carlisle's removal from the side, ostensibly for lack of performance, is merited as well. His inability to sustain a lengthy innings combines with a poor scoring rate. Even Taylor and Taibu, the brightest lights here as elsewhere in the batting statistics, are not quite up to international standards of excellence -- although they would be a credit to any side. The loss of Ferreira, for political reasons, makes little sense in these circumstances.

I'm joining a large chorus to say that Zimbabwe are in dire straits. The one thing in their favour as they prepare to play India in a two-Test series is the subcontinental side's tendency to self-destruct away from home. If India do come away with the laurels of victory in an away series, at long last, it is just another piece of evidence for the International Cricket Council to consider in the case for withdrawing Test status from Zimbabwe.
Catching Practices

Australians are whingeing again, this time about England's use of substitute fielders. This article includes the kind of statistics that mislead rather than inform. The last paragraph tells us that England have achieved more dismissals by substiute fielders since September 2001 than any other test side. Huh? Why 2001? And how does that compare with any other set of 52 tests involving subs. The origin of the data is here. Who is number two in the raw totals? Oh, West Indies with 16. Well, their record in the period of those 52 Tests is something we'd like to see Australia emulate.
11 September 2005
Sport and Politics

With all the cricketing world's eyes focused on The Oval, I'm here to talk about Zimbabwe. I did my end-of-Test-series analysis for the side, and listed five must-keep players: Dabengwa, Streak, Taibu, Taylor and... Ferreira. Of course, now we see that not only has Ferreira been effectively kicked out of the side, but that he had been kept out of it, based solely on his attitude to members of the Board. Zimbabwe has enough trouble over its talent level, which is dispiritingly low at the moment, thanks in part to the Board's policies. All national boards have a responsibility to the international cricketing community to field the most competitive side they can, even if it creates an uncomfortable situation for some of its members. The Zimbabwe board is clearly not particularly interested in providing competitive opposition to visitors, and it is about time the ICC stepped in and told them they are risking losing a loss of status. Zimbabwe does not have the depth in its cricket to withstand the sort of political shenanigans that go on there, and it is a great insult to cricket fans both there and elsewhere in the world that the board abnegates its responsibilities in such a cavalier fashion. I plan on writing a further analysis of Zimbabwe, but right now there's cricket to watch.
England Expects

England are batting in their second innings as I write, and without doubt every English cricket fan is mindful that this is the 200th anniversary of a famous flag signal. So I've posted a link to it.

Even before the start of the fourth day, I had concluded that the long-term fate of English cricket rests on the outcome of this match. Cricket had been an increasingly marginal sport in Britain, and the requirement to face uncommercial opponents such as Bangladesh or Sri Lanka on a regular basis to meet the requirements of the ICC Test Championship was no help. The English County Championship has been largely disregard by major British media outlets for some time. English cricket remains afloat thanks primarily to the income raised by sale of its Test broadcasting rights to television. Since the World Cup was held in Britain in 1999, the England cricket team's ability to make sustained progress in the Test rankings was not accepted by the 'fan in the street'. Close observers were aware that the 2003 series against South Africa was important, but the setback that following winter in Sri Lanka made all fearful that another false dawn had appeared.

However, the real prospect of beating Australia this summer has done wonders for bringing cricket to the forefront of media attention. But such is the strength of the 'false dawn syndrome' that I fear if England fail to take the Ashes tomorrow, the absence of cricket from free-to-air television until 2010 at the earliest will mark the diagnosis of a terminal illness for cricket as a major sport in Britain. It will subside to the level of boxing or rugby league -- closely followed by aficionados, but irrelevant to a national audience genuflecting before the altar of soccer.
10 September 2005
Cricket's Hidden Scandals

I guess it is not hard to put names to the descriptions in this article. However, since the Cronje scandal came to light I've found myself nervously viewing the outcomes of some cricket matches, particularly one-day games. It is a real shame for cricket fans that these concerns are not resolved properly. It would be some consolation if one was confident that all of cricket's authorities were seriously concerned about this problem, and were trying to do something about it. But there are a few characters one could point to and genuinely wonder whether they are at all interested. After all, the money rolls in. Why rock the boat?
8 September 2005
Collingwood In, Jones Out

An injury to Simon Jones has resulted in a call-up for Paul Collingwood to the England side. Collingwood was preferred over James Anderson, the Lancashire bowler who made an impact last year, but has subsequently fallen from favour. What does this tell us about the England plan for the Oval? Well, not a lot, really, except that they have preferred to bat as deep as possible. As far as bowling goes, a seat-of-the-pants calculation of what in sabermetrics is known as minor league equivalencies gives a translation of their 2005 First-Class averages as follows:

 Player               Strike Rate               Economy
Anderson                    69.3               3.78
Collingwood              83.5               4.12

I don't believe these figures are especially accurate. However, I do believe that it illustrates how risky choosing Collingwood is in terms of trying to win the Oval test match. I long argued (privately) that a draw is best secured by batting deeply, and for a team that is battling to get to the 'winning level' of wicket taking (a strike rate around 65) to opt, as in this case, for the worse wicket taker (in terms of career) suggests they might be thinking more of the series situation than the match one.

However, I have also argued (privately) that the Australians are long used to having things go their way, and that a side stands a better chance of discomposing them by putting them under pressure through scoring runs. This Australian side invariably does an excellent imitation of the 'whingeing pom' whenever things get difficult for them. England have, consequently, probably done what I would have done.

23 August 2005
Scare Tactics

Further down this story is an account of 'aggressive' bowler Shaun Tait's rough delivery to team-mate Justin Langer in the nets. Frankly, the way the Australians seem to be touting this fellow as a head-hunter. I put it down to psychological warfare of a type that Australians are exceptionally good at. I still remember how in the 1991 World Cup Final they put England right off their natural game, simply by talking beforehand. Anyway, injuring one of your opening batsmen doesn't seem an intelligent thing to do, and stupid aggression goeth before a fall, as fra paolo's breviary would say.

20 August 2005
Australian Sabermetrics

Ricky Ponting expresses the view that the ability of England bowlers to get reverse swing on the ball is a key advantage over Australia. As evidence, he offers the fact that most Australian wickets have fallen in the 10th through 30th overs 'just after the lacquer comes off the ball and it starts reversing'.

Is he right? Let's start by making sure that his analysis is correct. England have taken 59 wickets in the three tests so far.

	Overs		Wickets		per cent
	 1-9		   4		   7
	10-30		  22		  37
	31-50		  14		  24
	51-70		  10		  19
	71-new ball	   7		  13	

Well, on the surface, yes. By a considerable margin, a plurality of Australian wickets have fallen during that 10-30 'reverse swing phase'. However, it should be borne in mind that those 22 include one run-out, three wickets taken by spinner Ashley Giles, and 6 by bowlers not generally regarded as skilled at reverse swing (Harmison and Hoggard).

Furthermore, just because it is observed, doesn't make it true. Let's look how Australia have done in recent series.

In series against Pakistan in Australia and a tour of New Zealand, Australia played six tests. A total of 67 Australian wickets were taken in these matches. (That England have taken 59 in only three matches is in itself a remarkable feat.) Let's create the same table as above, but for these six tests.

	Overs		Wickets		per cent
	 1-9		  14 		  21
	10-30		  21		  31
	31-50		  17		  25
	51-70		  13		  20
        71-new ball	   2		   3	

Well, that's not quite as good as England managed in overs 10 through 30, but it isn't far off. In fact, look at how badly England's opening bowlers are doing compared with those of Pakistan and New Zealand.

Effectively, what Ponting is saying is that the ability of England's bowlers to get reverse swing on the ball is worth an extra three wickets, which is all the difference between the two teams. Excuse us while we laugh. Let us repeat that parenthetical fact above: England have taken almost as many wickets in three Test matches, as Australian batsmen lost in six. It's not just reverse swing, but everything the England bowlers are doing that is challenging the Australian batsmen. If they work on combatting reverse swing, they'll save three wickets. Well, that would still have been 56 they lost in three matches.

On the whole, it is a typical athlete at work here. Ponting has found an explanation that suits him, and may give him and his team the confidence to keep their wickets. But it's not justified by the facts.
16 August 2005
Cricket Ladder

We decided to revive our cricket ladder (see August 6th entry), having been inspired by the current exciting Ashes series. Here's the way the Test teams stand after the end of the West Indies' tour of Sri Lanka:

Australia
India
Pakistan (1)
England (2)
South Africa
Sri Lanka (2)
New Zealand
West Indies (1)
Bangladesh (0)
Zimbabwe

New Zealand's tour of Zimbabwe and the Ashes series will be the next two series to affect the ladder. Looking at how it has developed since last summer, it is remarkable how dominant Australia were during that period, considering they current problems they have overcoming England in these last two Tests. I can't believe England can maintain this level for another two Tests, so I don't expect a significant change at the top. But it would be a refreshing event if Australia were toppled this time round, and would make the 2005-6 round of Tours especially piquant.