News Links

For the latest blog posts go to the home page.

18 August 2004

Fi, Fie, Fidel

One of the things we have learned about cricket through trying to analyse the statistics in new ways is that losing teams tend to be statistically uncoordinated. What I mean is that by breaking down players' statistics into things like bowler's economy or strike rate, which measure two separate elements of the bowler's role, the ability to keep the score down and the ability to take wickets, it sometimes becomes obvious what the problem is. However, sometimes it doesn’t, because the problem is also related to the makeup of the batting order. A batting order weighted toward people who score fast, but don't stay in long, doesn't want a bowling lineup where people with good economy ratings but below average strike rates are in the majority—unless it also has a bowler with a strike rate of about 12.

The kinds of adjectives one might toss out in a word association game when offered the topic of 'West Indies batting' are words like 'talented', 'fragile', 'erratic'. In South Africa, West Indies batsmen averaged about 9.38 overs per inning, scoring 3.1 runs per over. The 9.38 is comparatively poor for Test teams playing matches between October 2003 and April 2004. The 3.1 runs are mediocre, and both figures are dragged down by the tail. On the basis of those statistics, West Indies need a bowling lineup that will keep the score down. If it takes two days to get the opposition out in doing so, it doesn't matter because the bats will be good enough to secure a draw. With some good luck, those economical bowlers will take a few more wickets and the talented top order is perfectly capable of scoring enough runs to win.

Taking the five specialist bowlers West Indies selected for the 3^rd Test at Old Trafford as a working example, the grim fact is that they on average are going to bowl a side out for just over 400 runs. Here's their economy and strike rates for all Tests from the tour of South Africa to Old Trafford, inclusive:

Empirical observation has also led us to conclude that currently the maximum strike rate for a winning side is in the 65-70 range, while the economy has to be under 3.25. (We expect these figures to change as we study more data.) As one can see from this, there are three bowlers who meet at least one of those categories, and two who don't.

Fidel Edwards may bowl with determination and aggression, and set a good example of someone who refuses to be beaten, but his statistics show that he is not doing his side any favours by being selected regularly. It's not as if there might be other alternatives, as this article suggests in saying he can barely get into the Barbados side. The pater patria of Sabermetrics, Bill James, long ago noted that bad teams not only are bad, but they honestly believe their weaknesses are strengths. Fidel Edwards was plucked from a net session into the West Indian side by Brian Lara. He has displayed the kind of character that Sir Viv Richards admires, as opposed to a more laid-back individual, such a Mervyn Dillon (famously reinstated in the side by Lara at the last Cape Town test). He is clearly a bowler of talent. But as England did with Flintoff, enduring a long apprenticeship in the Test side that may have hurt the team's chances of winning or at least drawing a few matches, so West Indies appear to be committed to Fidel. At least, given his name, it is a seemly gesture.

16 August 2004

SRL v RSA Changes Test Ladder

Sri Lanka's victory in the Test series against South Africa took them up to fourth place in the Cricketing Sabermetrics' Test Ladder, and left subcontinental sides in second, third, and fourth place in the ladder.

South Africa, by contrast, continued a slide that began when they dropped a similarly short two-test series against Pakistan last year. South Africa's cricketing authorities might like to reconsider scheduling such short series against mid-table opposition. An extra test might have allowed the powerful South African batting order to secure a series draw, in the absence of Muralitharan.

Sri Lankan bowlers' command of the RSA batting order was the key to their victory. Graeme Smith achieved the highest innings average for the South Africans, with 44.75. The only other batsmen to beat an overall batting innings average for the series (including Sri Lankan batsmen) of 29.09, were Dippenaar (35.25), Kallis (31.75), and van Jaarsveld (29.75). Although Sri Lanka could also only number four batsmen ahead of the series average, double centuries by Sangakkara and Jayawardene enabled them to accumulate respective averages of 91,75 and 81,75. Vaas averaged 46 and Jayasuriya 37.

As far as the bowling went, the series was dominated by performances in the second test from Jayasuriya and Vaas in the second test. Both finished with economies under 2, and Vaas managed a strike rate of 40 with Jayasuriya follwing behind with 55.87. Pollock was the best of the South African bowlers.

The ladder is now interestingly poised for England's visit to South Africa this winter. England look almost certain to pass South Africa once the results of series since April 1 are taken into account. Nearer the time, we might have more to say about it, but at the moment one would suspect by comparing their figures against Sri Lanka that South Africa is still the slightly better team.

11 August 2004

The Talented Mr Ridley

Nothing much between them in recent records. If Lara retains the captaincy throughout this tour of England, Lara and Hooper will have played the same number of games - a win for Lara will give him the edge, anything less than two draws in the last two Tests will see Hooper with the better record.

A closer look shows Lara's four wins came in 1-0 results in two-game home series against Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, a 1-0 result in an away two-game series against Zimbabwe, and a 1-3 result (winning the final game of what was a dead rubber) in a four-game series at home to Australia. Even in those series where he notched a win, one would suggest they should have done better.

Carl Hooper's four wins came in the final game, again a dead rubber, of a four game series at home to South Africa which they lost 2-1. An away win in a two-game series against Zimbabwe (1-0). So far not much difference. But he did lead his team to victory against a major team — India — in a home five-match series that they came from behind to win 2-1. Lara has yet to win a major series in his second stint at captaincy. Hooper was deprived of a chance to improve his record with a series against Bangladesh in a series which saw Ridley Jacobs lead the side to a 2-0 away win. The team hadn't won two games in an away series since 1996-7 when they lost 3-2 to Australia and hadn't won an away series by winning twice since 1992-3 when they defeated Australia 2-1 in a five-match series.

Quirky decisions seem to be Lara's trademark. Inserting England at Lord's reminded me of Hussain's disastrous decision to bowl at Brisbane — except at least England were playing five bowlers with a view to dismissing Australia (ahem). Lara, with just four bowlers unused to English conditions and the slope at Lord's, seemed to be protecting his batsmen even though they are considered to be the strength of the team. However, one could at least understand a desire for a captain to give his inexperienced team the chance to ease themselves into a Test at HQ by fielding first. What was more surprising was the decision not to bowl his best bowlers straight after lunch allowing the inexperienced Strauss and Key a more comfortable restart and to go on and set a partnership record and personal bests into the bargain. Such decisions abound in Lara's period at the helm.

I think the Windies were wrong to replace Hooper when they did, particularly the way they did it and thought Lara was the wrong choice to succeed him. It is of course too late to recall Hooper even if Carl was willing, and the obvious replacement now seems to be Sarwan but there is another choice:

Now a 2-0 win in Bangladesh is not conclusive, (my posting of his record is not entirely serious), but it is better than Lara's result against the Bangladeshis at home where the Windies have been considerably stronger of late. If I were one of the Windies selectors I would be pushing for Ridley to be the next Test captain. He has been a solid performer, he is the hub of the team, an automatic selection, has plenty of experience and is generally free from the blame for recent poor performances. At 36, he would be a stopgap leader, but the team is rebuilding. Given that he's just been left out of the one-day setup, it is highly unlikely he will be promoted in the longer game.

Sarwan's form looks fragile so the last thing he needs is to be saddled with the responsibility of leading a losing team and replacing Lara's runs if Brian takes his bat and ball back to Trinidad after being stripped of the captaincy. When he's not batting Chanderpaul looks an unlikely leader, Gayle's recent indiscretion suggests he may not be the man to lead the team away from the nightclub into the practice ground and none of the other players is regular enough to be given the captaincy.

The only other team change I believe that the West Indies need to make is to move Chanderpaul up the order. He has been a rock in the line-up and playing your most immovable batsman at 5 ahead of the worst tail in cricket reminds me of Graham Thorpe's role for England during the 90s. Other than that, increased fitness, improved ground fielding and consistent selection will see this Windies side fulfil its considerable potential and move back into the pack of teams chasing Australia rather than languishing in no man's land above only the substandard Zimbabwean and Bangladeshi teams.

• - - Phil Austin

Latest PWC Rankings

9 August 2004

Calypso Collapso

With the third England v West Indies test nearing, the question marks hanging over Brian Lara's captaincy will almost certainly be redrawn. Whether this is the wise thing to do is another matter. Outsiders should often bear in mind that, when criticizing West Indies' cricket, this is not a cricket board representing a single nation, but one that watches over cricket activities in several different countries. In these circumstances, the kind of intense regional feeling one can readily see elsewhere in world cricketing bodies has extra weight that adds another level to the kind of behind-the-scenes bickering that pops up in the media for us outsiders to view, as it were, 'through a glass darkly'.

So knives are out for Lara, wielded with gusto by the likes of Sir Viv Richards (whom I believe was the minority vote against his appointment by the selectors) and Colin Croft. But can we be sure anyone else would do better? Certainly a man whose name is increasingly associated with adjectives such as 'incisive' and 'penetrating' in conversations between the writers at this site, Geoffrey Boycott, is on the side of Lara being no worse than anyone else might be. And views on a blog devoted to West Indian cricket are running decidedly in Lara's favour. We'll spend some time this week looking at some evidence of what the problems are in the West Indian cricket side.

Without doubt, the West Indies could save themselves some trouble if they could avoid a traditionally English problem: collapses by recognized batsmen. A horrendous score of 47 a few months ago at the first test of England's tour is not something that West Indian fans will be grateful for me reminding them about. This, together with atrocious fielding, is held to represent some kind of absence of spine or iron in this West Indian side. Critics of Lara are basically demanding a dose of the 'grit' that Nasser Hussain was supposed to have brought to the England side (at least until Atherton retired). However, how collapse-prone has the team been under Lara's leadership?

First of all, we need to identify exactly what we mean by a collpase. After some discussion we settled on a working definition of a series of three or more partnerships that total no more than 60 runs, and individually score less than 35 runs apiece. Furthermore, we excluded the last three wickets in the order, since West Indian bowlers as a group are historically possibly the worst in cricket history. First, how did previous captain Carl Hooper's sides do?

And here are the leading collapsers at the time:

And collapses under Lara's second captaincy?

And the leading perpetrators?

So, creating a formula off the top of our head, we get the following

Lara does come out very slightly worse, but statistically it's not significant. He's a prominent collapser himself, topping the league table overall. And a big chunk of his side's collapses have occurred in the recent series against England. Prior to that, he was ahead of Hooper. However, of late his batsmen have shown marked fragility in both innings of a match, a propensity that dogged Hooper throughout his captaincy, and that Lara initially seemed able to fix.

So, if we accept that the case against Lara has to be made out that he is substantially worse than alternatives, any case resting on the fragility of the West Indian batting order has to be dismissed. He's not been doing any worse than Hooper, although that may change quickly. He's got two more tests against his current nemesis England!