|
For such a short series, India-Australia has generated a remarkable number of articles on the ascent of India and the demise of Australian cricket. Remarkable too, because the latter has been clear since the last Australian tour of India, and the subsequent loss to South Africa, while the former seems to be confusing a mathematical quirk of the flawed ICC ratings with prolonged dominance. India won easily, but did so without playing particularly well. They don't help themselves, with some woeful captaincy and poor fielding, but even the core of their game indicated some significant weaknesses. There were three major collapses in the series: 6/51, 8/124 and 8/149 (which concluded with 5/9); and their bowling, occasionally decent but often wretched conceded 400+ in both first innings. Take out Tendulkar (and eventually they'll have to) and the result could easily have been reversed; though the performances of Pujara, Vijay and Raina were indicative of a certain strength in depth. Good sides win even when they play poorly, and India have shown that quality a number of times recently; but good teams also win by consistently outplaying their opposition too, and India aren't doing that. For Australia this may well be the worst possible result. The loss was no more than expected, and it was a largely creditable one, led by a dogged Ponting. But there is a regularity to their weaknesses that needs to be rectified: the collapsing (in both second innings), the failure to keep the scoring rate down (particular Hauritz and Johnson), and the number of batsmen getting starts and not going on. Unfortunately, the clamour for change, so prevalent after the first test has quietened, as the players under pressure probably enough to save their spots even as they (and the team) failed to perform at key moments. For the moment, Australia retain their place at the top of the ratings, but India will almost certainly pass them during their series against a struggling New Zealand, or when Australia turn out against a surging England. It is entriely possible Australia could slip to fifth by the end of the summer, but the results and ratings over the past 2 years suggest something else: Australia are still as good as anyone, and, at home, should always go in as favourites.
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 16th October, 2010 21:17:06 [#] [8 comments]
Monday Melbourne: CCXVI, October 2010
|
Groups | Teams | Games | Days |
---|---|---|---|
4 | 4 | 24 | 9 (12) |
2 | 4 | 12 | 9 (12) |
Semis | 2 | 2 | |
Final | 1 | 1 | |
Rest | 3 | ||
Total | 39 | 24 (30) |
This is the personal preference of many, and has great appeal, combining a succinct number of games with a slightly longer second round to maximize the tv potential of the test teams. It's weakness lies in the first round where the line of qualification splits between the strong eight test sides and the weaker test sides/associate teams. While 2007 proved that this doesn't preclude them progressing, it also proved that it can make for some boring games. A 16 team world cup is also too short for broadcasters, rolling in at only 39 games.
24 Team World Cup with Quarters
Groups | Teams | Games | Days |
---|---|---|---|
6 | 4 | 36 | 9 (18) |
4 | 3 | 12 | 9 (12) |
Quarters | 4 | 3 (4) | |
Semis | 2 | 2 | |
Final | 1 | 1 | |
Rest | 3 | ||
Total | 55 | 28 (40) |
24 Team World Cup without Quarters
Groups | Teams | Games | Days |
---|---|---|---|
6 | 4 | 36 | 9 (18) |
4 | 3 | 12 | 9 (12) |
Semis | 2 | 2 | |
Final | 1 | 1 | |
Rest | 3 | ||
Total | 51 | 24 (36) |
Slightly messy, as 24 team world cups generally are (the problem is removing the odd prime multiplier), and with a relatively high number of first round mismatches. The 24 team world cup has the advantage, however of splitting between teams ranked 7-12 and teams ranked 13-18, which are generally competitive games. The second round, consisting of three games can split into either quarters (with 4 extra games but again splitting 5-8 vs. 9-12) or semis, where teams would need to win every game to progress.
20 Team World Cup
Groups | Teams | Games | Days |
---|---|---|---|
4 | 5 | 40 | 15 (20) |
Round 2 | 8 | 4 | 3 (4) |
Quarters | 4 | 3 (4) | |
Semis | 2 | 2 | |
Final | 1 | 1 | |
Rest | 3 | ||
Total | 51 | 27 (34) |
A 20 team world cup lies between the 16 and 24 team editions for quality, with a number of mismatches in a longer first round (it effectively adds a poor team to each group of a 16 team world cup). At first glance, that is a bad idea, but a twist makes it substantially more interesting. Instead of moving to quarter finals, incentive can be given for both topping the group, and coming third, giving decisive lines between 1-4 vs 5-8 and 9-12 vs 13-16 (with 17-20 being quite competitive in those games as well. First place is given a bye to the quarter finals, while 2nd and 3rd placed teams play-off in a second round.
This is my preferred format for several reasons: the minnows have a clear target in making the second round, with the added incentive that upsets in the first round could get them into second place and a potentially easier second round game; the major test teams can afford an upset in the first round, as they'll almost all come in the top three; and the game between the top 2 in the group has real spice, as no team would want to play an extra game, even if they are expected to win easily. Finally, its length is reasonable, being only a few days longer than the 16 team edition (though with more games over-lapping) substantially shorter than recent cricket world cups, but still passing the 48 game broadcasting requirement.
Idle Summers 11th October, 2010 08:11:00 [#] [5 comments]
Recently completed matches
2 Tests | India | v | Australia |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 1204.58 | 1220.57 | |
Form | +5.53 | -0.20 | |
Expected Margin | India by 42 runs | ||
Actual Margin | India by 1 wicket | ||
Post-rating | 1203.85 | 1221.21 |
A classic, only lacking a more fitting context than a two-test money-spinner at the start of the season. India, by and large, looked the better side, but can count themselves fortunate to have escaped with a win, having collapsed poorly in their chase of a moderate target. Australia were both gritty, as you'd expect, and fragile, as has been seen too often. Watson and Paine's efforts in the first innings were exemplary, and Ponting continues to work hard at the start of series, even if his best days are clearly behind him. Zaheer Khan was a deserved man of the match, carrying an often listless attack (and suffering from a distinct lack of effort in the field) to keep India in front, at least until Johnson's late hitting got Australia to a decent first innings score.
Sehwag was his enigmatic self, but India will be disappointed they didn't score more runs in reply. North, operating instead of a woefully ineffective Hauritz, prompted a mini-collapse after picking up Tendulkar. This gave Australia a chance of winning a game that was tending towards either a draw or an Indian win up that point, as well as marking the end of what had been excellent umpiring for the first three days.
The Australian collapse, losing 10/105 in 42 overs arrived as scheduled, as regular and frequent as a Japanese train. Poor shot-making, a couple of woeful (albeit balanced) decisions and whatever the hell Clarke was doing set up an intriguing chase, but it should never have been enough runs.
That it was, almost, was due to some poor Indian shot-selection, some canny bowling from Hilfenhaus and Bollinger, and some bizarre decisions from all involved. What Raina was doing out there running is beyond me, a tense chase is not the place for a player in his second series, even if he is fit and fast. Why Ponting persists with defensive fields to superior batsmen is also unknown. Not only does it gift easy singles to the partnership (the life-blood of a tail-ender who is easily bogged down), it essentially allowed Laxman to play aggressively as there was little chance of being caught. The glut of runs proved Australia's undoing, as the runs required fritted away quickly, only slowing as the finish-line neared, and the intensity rose. Laxman was serene through-out proving once again that he thrives when most keenly challenged, and that ability to perform in the clutch was ultimately all that separated the two sides.
The ratings remain stagnant, as you'd expect in such a close contest. Australia really struggled to match India in this match however, and I expect the home side to run away with the next game.
I-Cup Match | Kenya | v | Afghanistan |
---|---|---|---|
Pre-rating | 351.46 | 404.44 | |
Form | +3.55 | +100.81 | |
Expected Margin | Kenya by 24 runs | ||
Actual Margin | Afghanistan by 167 runs | ||
Post-rating | 338.92 | 445.10 |
A comprehensive victory for Afghanistan who continue their fine record in the longer form of the game on the strength of their bowling. Hamid Hassan was the dominant figure again, taking 11 wickets, albeit a little expensively. An entertaining game though, with here over 1150 runs were scored and 36 wickets fell in the first three days. Nawroz Mangal anchored Afghanistan's first innings with 168, while only Seren Waters, fresh from a county stint showed any life in Kenya's disappointing reply of 160. Otieno completed a fine game for him, taking 4 wickets in each innings to provide a target of 512 for Kenya, but while several players got starts, noone went on and they fell well short; the tail collapsing to Hassan's burst early on the last day. Afghanistan continue their climb up the rankings, with the opportunity to surpass Scotland when they play in the final in late November.
Rankings at 9th October 2010 | ||
---|---|---|
1. | Australia | 1221.21 |
2. | India | 1203.85 |
3. | South Africa | 1193.34 |
4. | England | 1158.25 |
5. | Sri Lanka | 1109.33 |
6. | West Indies | 919.14 |
7. | New Zealand | 917.91 |
8. | Bangladesh | 638.24 |
9. | Zimbabwe | 556.79 |
10. | Ireland | 556.46 |
11. | Scotland | 461.60 |
12. | Afghanistan | 445.10 |
13. | Namibia | 388.49 |
14. | Kenya | 338.92 |
15. | U.S.A. | 296.99 |
16. | Uganda | 268.44 |
17. | Nepal | 196.51 |
18. | Netherlands | 195.69 |
19. | U.A.E. | 182.53 |
20. | Canada | 177.51 |
21. | Hong Kong | 148.65 |
22. | Cayman Is | 134.24 |
23. | Malaysia | 123.90 |
24. | 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 9th October, 2010 10:44:54 [#] [0 comments]
Much of the debate over UDRS doesn't object to the technology, so much as the means taken to adjudicate on it. Having players question the umpire's decision is an unedifying spectacle, and slows the game down. This is doubly ironic when you consider that a different process might achieve the same results without a referral at all.
Globally available light-weight smart-phones with sufficient processing and communications power exist to convey information to the centre instantly. The on-field technology of the UDRS - essentially a walkie-talkie and a request for an off-field assessment - is an anachronism in a world of instant communication.
We present here, therefore, several proposals for improving umpiring, based on readily available technology, that would improve decision making, and speed up the game.
Instant Umpire Decision System
Availability: could be implemented tomorrow
The not-so-humble smart phone is the key to improving umpiring. Fundamentally, it is no more than a small, light-weight computer and screen with wireless connectivity. The information assessed post-decision by the third umpire is quite straight-forward: did the ball pitch outside leg? did the ball hit the batsman in line? would it have gone on to hit the stumps? More importantly, that information is stored electronically and available relatively quickly. There is no reason, therefore why it could not be conveyed via a wireless antenna in the broadcasting box to an application on the umpire's smart phone prior to them making the original decision.
With a quick glance to confirm (or over-turn) their original impression, the umpire could make their decision with the same level of accuracy as the existing UDRS process, but all on the field.
But that isn't the only modern technology that could be applied, with a little work.
Edge Detection
Availability: technology is available
HotSpot has been a mixed experience. Good for tv viewers but unreliable because the bat is not always clearly visible, or the mark sufficiently noted. The technical solution is the application of touch sensitive strips to bats. measuring as little as 0.5mm. These would easily sense the ball, and the size and width of contact. However, they also need to be connected to a wireless chip (with a close proximity receiver), a battery and chip. The weight (perhaps 30g) and size (25x5mm) would be no problem, and the chipset could be taped in below the bat handle. Add a light-weight accelerometer and other tv-centric information like bat-speed could be sent via the broadcaster.
No-ball Detection
Availability: needs research
This is significantly more complex than it seems. The law only requires that some part of the foot land behind the line, not be grounded making it difficult to distinguish between a foot passing over the line, and one that has landed. More difficulties arise with the technology. Curvature of the ground would prevent the sort of fault-line technology used in the tennis while anything laid on the ground would quickly be destroyed by bowler's spikes. The most likely option would seem to be visual recognition technology similar to that used by hawkeye, to detect where the foot landed.
Instant referral is a must, however. in this day and age, there is no reason why an umpire must rely on a man in a box to convey the same information they could have had sent to them on demand.
Thanks to Achettup and Kartikeya for inspiring this piece.
Idle Summers 8th October, 2010 12:25:09 [#] [3 comments]
Heat brings storms. Taken October 2010
Melbourne Town 6th October, 2010 22:34:04 [#] [0 comments]