Skinny dog. Taken January 2012

Melbourne Town 24th January, 2012 19:21:51   [#] [0 comments] 

1st Test	Pakistan	v	England
Pre-rating	1063.77		1333.15
Form	+22.09		+63.14
Expected Margin	England by 135 runs
Actual Margin	Pakistan by 10 wickets
Post-rating	1086.04		1318.64

England continue impressioning the girl with a lock in her forehead. Their only small loss in the past 3 years was by 4 wickets to Pakistan; at Dubai they were again thrashed, saving themselves from an innings defeat only thanks to Swann and Anderson's late hitting. At some level we oughtn't be surprised. In the warm-up they lost wickets to loose shots, including several leg-side nicks. Against a better batting lineup than the associates their accurate bowling kept them in the game for longer than most teams might have, but on a pitch with few dramas, no team can win with only 352 runs on the board across two innings.

Their nemesis, Saeed Ajmal (10/97) continues his excellent form from last year. There wasn't serious spin on offer but his flight and England's rubbish shot selection were sufficient. With the bat, Pakistan were patient, as expected, with Mohammad Hafeez and Taufeeq Umar providing an under-rated stable opening partnership; and Adnan Akmal (61) shepherding the tail brilliantly to turn a strong position into a dominant one. His keeping was also top quality, taking four catches in the second innings. A big improvement on his brother.

England have made a habit of bouncing back from losses, and they aren't rated as highly as they are for nothing. The best Pakistani sides have always married grit to their natural flair, and for all the criticisms of Misbah ul Haq's conservatism, this one is no different. In conditions that favour them, it will take a performance England has shown no sign of producing on tour to date to turn win the final two games of the series.

Forthcoming Series

Only Test	New Zealand	v	Zimbabwe
Pre-rating	879.42		556.62
Form	+4.29		-1.28
Expected Margin	New Zealand by 211 runs

Another series with two teams whose ratings are probably inaccurate given their circumstances. Zimbabwe's long lay-off means their rating is provisional, although their few tests back are indicative that they are not too far wrong. New Zealand's win in Australia was a big boost for a side that had been going backwards for most of the past two years, and their youthful side might be due a resurgence. Conversely, the first leg between these two sides produced a minor classic, so the 211 run expected margin looks generous.

At home, New Zealand ought to win comfortably. Their batting will need to adjust after several months of T20, but there are no terrors in the Zimbabwe bowling lineup, and few obstacles in their batting. In the sort of test that would be very interesting in a championship, but is a fairly meaningless run-out with none, any sort of contest will be welcome.

Rankings at 22nd January 2012
1.	England	1318.64
2.	South Africa	1181.00
3.	Australia	1160.02
4.	Pakistan	1086.04
5.	India	1042.99
6.	Sri Lanka	1036.56
7.	West Indies	923.80
8.	New Zealand	879.42
9.	Bangladesh	601.34
10.	Zimbabwe	556.62
11.	Ireland	559.06
12.	Afghanistan	514.53
13.	Scotland	437.45
14.	Namibia	407.53
15.	Kenya	338.92
16.	U.S.A.	296.99
17.	Uganda	268.44
18.	U.A.E.	219.51
19.	Netherlands	202.55
20.	Nepal	196.51
21.	Canada	154.58
22.	Hong Kong	148.65
23.	Cayman Is	134.24
24.	Malaysia	123.90
25.	Bermuda	105.40

Shaded teams have played fewer than 2 games per season. Non-test team ratings are not comparable to test ratings as they don't play each other.

Idle Summers 22nd January, 2012 09:41:00   [#] [0 comments] 

Yay for Indian incompetence. Having already previewed the England-Pakistan series on the basis that it overlapped with the Perth test, the short test means I can put it here with the Adelaide preview instead.

3rd Test	Australia	v	India
Pre-rating	1140.33		1065.48
Form	+27.98		-44.91
Expected Margin	Australia by 87 runs
Actual Margin	Australia by an innings and 37 runs
Post-rating	1160.02		1042.99

It seems hard to believe that 3 1/2 years ago Dhoni was being lauded by commentators for his aggressive fields and batting, in contrast to the passive Kumble who let tests drift to draws with Indian ascendant. Now, apparently, it is Kumble's fight that is needed to pick India up. Dhoni's passivity in Melbourne and Sydney surely cost them when opportunities to attack presented themselves. the Indian captain can counter that with the undeniable truth that a captain cannot attack with runs leaking to all parts of the ground. The bowlers, similarly, will argue that the fieldsmen cost them more runs than their Australian counterparts.

Australia's batting remains far from strong though, and outside Sydney, India's bowlers have performed well enough. Unlike in England where they were beset by injuries they could call on quality players. Yet they let certain sessions either drift, or be taken away from them. Yadav has plenty of potential, but leaks too many runs, Zaheer needs support from the other end, Ishant a reminder that he hasn't achieved anything of note. Last season, England's gaps in wicket-taking were filled with dry lines and sustained pressure that kept them on top until something happened. In Perth, India chose the worst possible batsman to feed several poor balls an over. Warner's innings was attacking without being foolish, as evidenced by Cowan scoring at nearly a run-a-ball as well. It was incredible hitting, and it effectively finished the game after Australia's earlier dominance with the ball. Without the 150 gifted runs of that session, Australia would have faced a trying 3rd day chase, not won with an innings and some to spare.

Australia might well be asked why they persisted with Johnson for so long. Without his erratic lines the others have looked capable or better in every test. With Cummins, Pattinson and Lyon outside the XI, and the promise of Faulkner and others, it seems unlikely a place can be found for an enigmatic bowler who manages to put it together only one game per season.

A final word on India's batting, which has let them down badly, starting with the openers, and only kept from total collapse by Tendulkar, Dravid (still well below their best) and in Perth, a fortunate Kohli. Kohli made a comment to the effect that they were unlucky coming in and out of sessions. He is right, except the bit about luck. In the 5 overs at the start or end of a session India lost 13/126 in Perth; in the rest of the session, 7/205. Australia, by contrast, made 119/3 and 250/7. It is a statistic that speaks of a lack of either fitness, concentration or effort; and a problem Australia has ruthlessly exploited. Those wickets late in the session did more to hurt India than any single factor in Perth; the heat no doubt takes some blame, as it saps enery and concentration, but players can train for that, and that ultimately, is where India's trouble stem from. Unlike England last summer, they weren't prepared to face the unique tests Australia poses, and they've come up well short. The series moves to Adelaide with India ranked fifth; such is their fall, that they will need a decent performance to stay above Sri Lanka.

Forthcoming Series

3 Tests	Pakistan	v	England
Pre-rating	1063.77		1333.15
Form	+22.09		+63.14
Expected Margin	England by 135 runs

A difficult to predict series, with both teams on runs of form that might be luck, but might be indicative that their rating is well under. Although this game is being played on neutral territory, the UAE is expected to suit Pakistan more than England, although (unsurprisingly) the latter have had the more professional build-up. The ICC XI game was an interesting one, slightly contrived to get a result, but far closer to expected - ratings-wise, if England is the baseline, the ICC XI played at the same level as South Africa. England's batting struggled badly in that game, mostly due to uncharacteristically loose shots, although they chased down 261 to win, they'll have to play better against Pakistan, who've recently shown the patience to compile big scores and the skill to defend them.

England's bowling attack has been subject to much speculation, between those who'd prop for Panesar as second spinner, Tremlett or Finn who'll struggle to find the bounce and pace they like, and Onions, back from injury and something of an unknown. Or five bowlers, generally disliked by anyong sensible enough to realise that if you need five bowlers (100+ overs), you almost certainly need an extra batsman too. Not enough tests have been played on the ground for me to guess at what they ought to do; those that have been played here have often been boring draws, and neither batting lineup is likely to collapse and gift victory if that is the case.

If a team does gift victory, it will probably be Pakistan, whose recent strong record is predicated on playing weak teams, and might become very bogged down against a tighter bowling lineup, or be found out as completely ineffective against circumspect batting. If England play anything like their form in the past 12 months they will win comfortably. Pakistan are perfectly capable of achieving the other three results as well.

Rankings at 16th January 2012
1.	England	1333.15
2.	South Africa	1181.00
3.	Australia	1160.02
4.	Pakistan	1063.77
5.	India	1042.99
6.	Sri Lanka	1036.56
7.	West Indies	923.80
8.	New Zealand	879.42
9.	Bangladesh	601.34
10.	Zimbabwe	556.62
11.	Ireland	559.06
12.	Afghanistan	514.53
13.	Scotland	437.45
14.	Namibia	407.53
15.	Kenya	338.92
16.	U.S.A.	296.99
17.	Uganda	268.44
18.	U.A.E.	219.51
19.	Netherlands	202.55
20.	Nepal	196.51
21.	Canada	154.58
22.	Hong Kong	148.65
23.	Cayman Is	134.24
24.	Malaysia	123.90
25.	Bermuda	105.40

Shaded teams have played fewer than 2 games per season. Non-test team ratings are not comparable to test ratings as they don't play each other.

Idle Summers 17th January, 2012 15:20:07   [#] [0 comments] 

Emerald Hill. Taken November 2011

Melbourne Town 16th January, 2012 21:00:18   [#] [0 comments] 

Pattinson, Cummins, Harris, Johnson, Watson. It is hard to say if that would be Australia's first choice bowling lineup because for most of the past two years the choice has been so limited as to be irrelevant. What is clear, is that there is a problem with injuries to fast bowlers that afflicts world cricket.

Numerous articles have been written about workload, arguing that modern bowlers have more or less than their predecessors, and ought to therefore have more or less work today. I don't want to go into those, except to note that, by and large, injuries have always been a problem in cricket - we merely tend to forget players crippled early in their careers - and that they are far more severe problem for a professional cricketer than an amateur one.

What I would like to do is make a comparison with the closest sporting equivalent to a fast bowler: a baseball pitcher. Despite closer management and more focused training, professional baseball has also seen a gradual increase in the number of injuries, however they have also seen an increase in career length. The latter is almost certainly more important. A pitcher will be cut for weak performance or career ending injuries, with the former often being a function of the former. The longer the average career, the less impact those injuries are having, even if the total number of injuries remains constant.

There is a lot written about proper pitcher management, because it matters a lot to multi-million dollar baseball players and the franchises that purchase their labour. Except in particular circumstances pitchers follow a strict program of rest and recovery, mindful that (according to this article) the highest skeletal muscle stress levels occur 2-4 days after significant effort. A finding supported by this study that there is an optimum bowling load of neither too many, nor too few overs, and of breaks neither too short nor too long; and this study that shows a massive risk ratio increase of 1.94 for fast bowlers in the second innings.

A starting pitcher therefore operates on a strict schedule. Lincecum, a pitcher San Francisco would use every day if they could, has a pitch count by day of the season (excluding spring training) that ticks like clockwork. Cricket's problem with injuries almost certainly stems in part from doing the opposite. During the first class season (the first half of the year) Mitchell Johnson's total workload is lower, but his day by day ball count shows clumps of peak activity, with no chance of minor stress recovery, followed by two (or more when rested) weeks of inactivity that can only serve to lower conditioning.

Cricket Australia have claimed in the last two days that Pattinson would have been rested for Perth as, by the end of the Sydney test, he was exceeding the workload needed to avoid injury. Too little, too late to rest a player for two weeks after pushing 450 balls out of him in 11 days. A pitcher would never exceed 360 pitches in that space of time.

The only way to manage a player sufficiently closely to prevent that sort of overload is to have no back-to-back tests (a nightmare for schedulers, but common in the distant past) or to give teams the right to substitute players.

The danger with substitutes is that they can give an unfair advantage to one team if they are unconstrained. In other sports - and cricket is unique amongst major sports in not permitting substitutes - both offence and defence must be maintained as the game switched regularly between disciplines. Cricket does not, however, having only three changes, and only one where both have been played, and will be played. The ICC's ill-thought-out ODI substitute rule in 2005 floundered on this problem, acting more like a "designated hitter" rule than substitute, helping the team batting second with no benefit for the team batting first.

If implemented in first class cricket, a substitute rule would need to be resticted to between the second and third innings, maintaining parity between disciplinary needs (although teams ought to be free to lessen one in favour of the other).

Weirdly, we don't have to look far to see a successful implementation. In the ICC XI vs England game, Hamid Hassan's untimely collision with the long-on fence saw George Dockrell replace him for the second innings. It was a seamless transition. The ICC XI always had 11 batsmen, 11 fieldsmen, and five bowlers. They gain, slightly, for introducing a spinner and stronger batsman for the second innings, but only tactically, not structurally. Statistical records, measured in runs and wickets per innings, not by the game, are almost unaffected by the change.

Tradition will make people oopposed to change, but the no-substitute rule operated for 70+ years in football before it was changed, and now it is hard to imagine the game without it. Traditions change. Done properly, noone really cares.

Aesthetically, a substitute rule would add, not detract from the sport.

• It allows scope for tactical change, the introduction of a spinner for a paceman, a more aggressive batsman for a plodder, a bowling all-rounder for a batsman; making the game richer.
• It prevents a team being heavily disadvantaged by early injury, although some disadvantage is still inevitable, while they wait for the change. As much as we admire Cowdrey, Marshall, or McCosker, playing injured is also stupid, and can do more damage.
• The tactical scope would allow aspects of the game to reverse their decline such as out and out pacemen or spinners working in tandem. Similarly, any improvement to bowling quality helps redress the current dominance of batsmen, as well as improving the standard of cricket being watched.
• Players currently unable to handle the physical strain of test cricket could have had longer careers bowling half-games. A short-list of players in this category would include Malinga, Bond and Flintoff, all crowd pullers sadly missed.
• In theory, allowing players to rest while the game continues would also reduce the need for week-long breaks, allowing the scheduling of back-to-back-to-back games.

But mostly, it is about keeping players on the field, where they ought to be. If Pattinson and Cummins had been able to share the load while they matured, both would probably have turned out in Perth this week. Similarly, Harris is unlikely to have a fruitful career through his mid-30s, being maybe one injury from ending it completely. Being able to play half a game at a time woulg significantly reduce the probability of that injury happening.

Idle Summers 10th January, 2012 07:47:02   [#] [0 comments]