Wednesday, June 30, 2010

NOT AN INSULT

Check out our blogs edited into an exclusive ebook at: http://www.searchingforsachin.net/

Speaking as an Australian, I feel absolutely no insult over the rejection of John Howard as Deputy President of the ICC. None whatsoever. And many of my cricket-loving compatriots feel the same way.

I agree with Peter Roebuck's decription of John Howard as 'an outsider uninvolved in cricket'.

Why should Howard have been nominated? Certainly not on the basis of his provocative comments about Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action. It was none of his business.

Let's keep conservative politicians in their place - as spectators - and leave sport to talented sports men and women.

Check out earlier blogs edited into an exclusive ebook at: http://www.searchingforsachin.net/

Copyright cvwilliams.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

FOR CRICKET STATS FREAKS

Check out our blogs on Sachin Tendulkar edited into an exclusive ebook at: http://www.searchingforsachin.net/

OVER TO YOU AGAIN THIS WEEK, JEREMY GILLING, STATISTICIAN EXTRAORDINAIRE. Your observations of the game are mircoscopic, intense and possibly prophetic when you ask...

'Has chasing down a big fourth-innings target become easier in recent years? If so, does that mean the team batting third needs to be more cautious in setting a fourth-innings target?

Analysis of fourth-innings results over the years suggests that the answer to both questions is yes. The past decade has seen seven fourth-innings scores of 400+ (two of them to win, and in the process eclipse all past winning fourth-innings totals) and 14 of 380+. The entire 134 years of Test cricket have featured just 18 fourth-innings scores of 400+ and 25 of 380+. (Yes, that’s right: every fourth-innings score between 380 and 399 has occurred since 2000.)

It is also clear that the “par” fourth innings target – the score where the odds of getting the runs are about 50:50 – has risen sharply in the past decade.
To demonstrate this, I’ve divided the Test era into eight periods: the nineteenth century; the two pre-war eras of the twentieth century; the post-WW2 years to 1970; and each of the subsequent four decades. These periods seem to strike a reasonable balance between durations and numbers of Tests played, and also form a fairly natural epochal divide.

Of the 1959 Tests played to date (to the end of the England-Bangladesh series), 936 have produced a fourth-innings result (including the two ties, but excluding draws).
I’ve calculated the “par” fourth-innings score for each of these eight periods as the closest fit to the score for which the probability of the batting team reaching a target above that score equals that of the fielding team defending a target below that score. For example, for the 38 eligible Tests played in the nineteenth century, the fourth innings target was 169 or more for 14, and these targets were achieved four times, or 29 per cent of the time. On the other hand, the fourth innings target was 151 or less for 24 Tests, and these targets were successfully defended seven times, also 29 per cent of the time. The par score is the average of 151 and 169, or 160.

BATTING EASIER?

As batting became easier after 1900, and easier again between the wars, so the par score increased – to 216 in the pre-WW1 years and 258 in the interwar period. It then fell back to 235 for the 25 years to 1970, and 227 for the following decade, before jumping again, to 261, in the 1980s.

Then in the 1990s the par score collapsed to a level not witnessed since before WW1. But even more dramatic was the rise in the most recent decade – a 64-run jump to 283. Suddenly, in defiance of decades of accepted wisdom, batting in the fourth innings seems to have become not much more difficult than in the first three innings.

Now it could fairly be said that batting generally seems to be easier these days, and the table bears this out to some extent. Runs per wicket in all innings of all Tests, at 34.62, is at an historic high – more than 10 per cent up on the previous decade. (No doubt high-tech bats, smaller playing areas, and perhaps also greater physical fitness – enabling batsmen to concentrate better for longer – have a lot to do with it.) But even allowing for this – as I’ve done by dividing the par score by the runs per wicket figure – it’s clear that the chasing team has an easier task than at any time since the early twentieth century.

My Table reveals other interesting trends. The first two periods to the outbreak of WW1 saw plenty of upsets – teams were able to chase down an above-par target, or defend a below-par target, more than a quarter of the time. By contrast, in the interwar period, most matches followed the script – just 7 per cent of above-par targets were chased down, and only 10 per cent of below-par targets defended.
From then on the pattern has stabilised, with consistently between one in seven and one in nine Tests not conforming to expectations.

WEIGH IT UP

Is all this a good or bad thing? On balance, I think the game is the poorer now that the final-day drama of batsmen fighting for survival against spinners in their element is being steadily lost. Misbehaving fifth-day pitches are a rich part of cricket lore. Do we really want Test matches to follow the same tempo throughout the five days?'

For a copy of Jeremy's detailed Table of the basis for his conclusions above, email cvwananda.com.au NOW!

Jeremy reckons his detailed analysis has only been possible with Ric Finlay’s dazzling, and very affordable, Tastats Test cricket software, available through www.tastats.com.au.

And that's as close to an advertisement as this column is ever going to go.

Copyright Jeremy Gilling.

See you soon - hopefully with some fresh Sachin material!

Check out our other blogs edited into an exclusive ebook at: http://www.searchingforsachin.net/

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

BRETT LEE'S FRIENDLY TAKE ON SACHIN TENDULKAR: "a big kid"

Check out our blogs edited into an exclusive ebook at: http://www.searchingforsachin.net/

Check out our blogs edited into an exclusive ebook at: http://www.searchingforsachin.net/

Copyright cvwilliams