Solving the Super Over Situation

New Zealand have an issue with super overs. We play them much more than anyone else, and we're terrible at them.

We have played in 8 super overs in the past 12 years. We have lost 7 of them. There have only been 15 super overs in the history of international cricket. We play them ridiculously often, and we lose them ridiculously often.

Losing 7 out of 8 stops being bad luck, it start being something that needs to be dealt with.

Here's my solution: We play a single day domestic super over tournament on Waitangi Day every year.

We can either let association have a turn to host it, or pick one venue (possibly Whangarei for the proximity to Waitangi) to host it every year.

The day would work with every team playing a super over against every other team, (15 super overs) then semi-finals and a final.

It would take about 7 hours (shorter if there was quick hand overs between matches) - roughly the same as an ODI match, and could have a rugby 7's type festival feeling to it.

I can already hear the critics talking about shortening the game, and "what's next one ball matches" but this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

In most of those matches we should have won in regular time. We didn't generally get to a super over because we did well, and fought back. We almost invariably got into a super over because we were in a position to win the match, and did not manage to seal it.

Having our players playing those sort of pressure situations more often would tell us who is capable of handling that pressure. As such, we would want a variety of players involved. There should therefore be a rule that each bowler can only bowl in two matches, and each batsman can only be one of the three designated batsmen in three matches. That will mean that each team will have to use at least 3 bowlers and 6 batsmen. For the semi and final then they can pick whoever they want.

This seems to be the only option other than just hoping that we get better.

I'd rather do something, than nothing.

Over to you, New Zealand Cricket.

A better World Cup format

As this world cup draws to a close, I've been thinking about the positives and negatives of the format.

There are quite a few of both.

Firstly the positives:

1. Everyone plays each other.
2. Not too many matches that seem like a mismatch on paper.
3. Teams that lose a couple of games early still have the chance to compete.
4. Guaranteed 9 matches for India, so the ICC get enough money to keep growing international cricket.
5. There was a match or two every day through the majority of the tournament, so that the momentum built towards the finals.

Then the negatives:

1. Not enough representation from lower level teams. The qualification was too difficult, and so the goal of making the world cup became unrealistic for most teams.
2. There were only 3 matches in the final week, meaning that the momentum was lost.
3. Dead rubbers, or similar - 3 teams were effectively eliminated with 2 weeks to go.
4. Incomplete rounds - India being 2 matches behind made the narratives and changes in fortune less obvious. 
5. Pitches were too different from how they've played over the past 4 years, meaning that there was too much of a role of luck in the event. 

The negatives are too great to mean that it's a good idea to continue with the same format in my opinion. But, the positives are things worth keeping.

So, using those positives as constraints as much as possible, and also keeping the tournament to the same length, I have come up with a format that I believe will make for a better event.

Paine vs Pant

The Instagram photo. 

I wanted to quickly share my thoughts about the Paine - Pant sledge.

I've been an outspoken critic of "mental disintegration" -- the tactic of using personal abuse and insults to get under a player's skin and put them off their game, but I really liked what I heard from Paine, and think it's the sort of sledging that is totally appropriate.

When not going for the victory is an act of courage

South Africa chose to defend the last 4 overs, rather than try and score 16 runs for victory. At first glance this seems like an act of either stupidity or cowardice, but I think it was neither.

They missed out on a chance to make history, by becoming the only team to have successfully chased over 450. But they also missed out on losing a match that would have meant that the series was unwinnable.

Instead Steyn and Philander looked at the options and decided that they were a better team than India, and backed themselves to win the next test. If they went 1-0 down in the series, the best possible outcome was a drawn series, but if the match was a draw, then it was still possible to win the series.

Imran Tahir was probably the next man in. In roughly 2/3 of his innings he has lasted less than 10 balls. That is not the player you want to have saving a test. Morne Morkel is more competent, but it's difficult to bat with only one leg working. It was entirely likely that those two could have been dismissed in the space of an over.

Given that restriction, it made sense that the South Africans decided to be positive with regards to the series, and back themselves to win the second match. It certainly would have been frustrating for them and for any South African fans, but it was probably the correct call.

It appeared to be an act of cowardice, but really it was an act borne of a confidence in their ability to win the second test.

A terrible decision

Anyone who is an opponent of DRS has just got a whole lot of ammo. The problem is not the system (in my opinion) it's the implementation. The idea that there needs to be clear evidence to overturn a decision is fine, but I genuinely think that the decision to give Usman Khawaja out was appalling.

International cricketers need to be careful about how they talk about umpires, but Jimmy Neesham didn't hold back, with this tweet:

Image found of the third umpire deliberating on Khawaja's referral pic.twitter.com/oz3640AtEB

— Jimmy Neesham (@JimmyNeesh) August 1, 2013

CricketGeek Book Review: The Albion 2013 Ashes eBook - by The Armchair Selector

The team at The Armchair Selector have put together a handy guide for anyone who is wanting to watch the Ashes in 2013.

A screen shot of the eBook's

eye-pleasing layout.

It includes information about the players, the ground, some recent history and some personal accounts of ashes experiences.

The layout and design of the eBook is outstanding, it's visually captivating while still being very readable.

The team have done well to find a balance between being informative about the cricket, and humorous and easy to read. For me the highlight was Peter Miller's section giving tips for keeping awake through the night for the matches.

The one omission was Ashton Agar from the profiles, but to be fair, he was very much a surprise selection.

Overall I really enjoyed it. I would recommend it to any cricket tragic who's likely to be spending a lot of time on the couch (or to anyone who isn't a massive fan, but wants to sound knowledgeable). I'm not sure if they are planning on producing one of these for the return series, but if they are, I'll be buying one.

The eBook costs US$3.99, and can be bought here.

The ethics of walking

What should come next?

My undergraduate degree was a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in Philosophy. While my primary interest was in logic, I also did some ethics and metaphysics papers also. I found ethics a fascinating subject, as things were very difficult to pin down. Different philosophers have argued over the existence of some sort of objective moral law. If they have agreed that there is such a thing as a moral law, they have then often disagreed as to what it is.

The idea of the moral law has led to some great works of literature. Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment is a fascinating look at the concept, as are a large number of Franz Kafka's short stories. But even low-brow fiction often is based on moral dilemmas or concern about the moral law. There's a theory that the Twilight series by Stephanie Meyer were so much more popular than other similar books because of some of the moral questions that they posed. Can someone be a monster by nature? Can someone overcome that nature? Is it wrong for someone to act according to a corrupted nature?

 Recently Stuart Broad's failure to walk after edging a ball from Ashton Agar set off a storm of controversy. Claim from one group of fans about cheating followed by counter claims by the other group of fans. Not long ago there was also the issue with Denesh Ramdin claiming a catch that he had actually dropped, and the ICC banning him for 2 matches as a result.

I'm going to first look at the process of the appeal, outlined in rules, then at three possible ethical frameworks and finally at these two situations, and look what the different ethical perspectives would have said about them.

A good problem to have.

New Zealand have 4 good quick bowlers at the moment. However there's only space in the team for 3.  This means that one of them has to miss out.  Here's a quick look at the 4 contenders, and their strengths and weaknesses.

Reserve days for tests

A 4-day test match finished today, in a quite unsatisfying draw.  It was originally scheduled as a 5 day, but the entire first day was ruled out through rain, and so, according to law 13.3, the test was designated as a 4 day match, and the follow on target was reduced to 150 accordingly. 

The reason it was unsatisfying was that another days play and this could have been an epic finish, rather than a tame one.  It might have still been a draw.  But it might have been a famous win for England, after their terrible first innings, or it might have been a morale boosting win for New Zealand.

Given that there is already a precedent of the match conditions being able to be changed in a result of a days play being abandoned due to weather, I think it would be sensible for there to be a reserve day tacked on at the end of a test, and if (and only if) an entire day's play is lost, that day is designated as a rest day, and the test is extended onto the reserve day.

There have been very few 5 day draws in tests in the last 3 years.  Almost every draw has had 2 or 3 sessions lost to rain. Making an allowance for that might mean that we get a result in some of those matches.

Sorry Kieron

watch Pollard's running between wickets.He's incredible, but nobody notices, because when he hits 6's they go a long way. #AusvWI

— Michael Wagener (@Mykuhl) February 6, 2013

That was the worst jinx ever.

— Michael Wagener (@Mykuhl) February 6, 2013

Why I Love "The Boring Middle Overs"

Possibly not the most balanced field in an ODI.

In a couple of days, New Zealand and South Africa will play an ODI in Paarl.  And the press box will be almost empty.  There was close to 60 people in the press box just down the road at Newlands for the test match. Admittedly quite a few of them weren’t actually press, but just people who managed to get a pass in order to get a good seat some free food, and internet access to block up the lines for the people who actually needed it, but there were still a significant number of writers there, hunting out stories about the epic mismatch. In Paarl there is likely to be less than 10 actual journalists.

Part of that is because there is the African Cup of Nations on at the same time, and some of the newspapers and agencies only have so much budget to cover sport.  Paarl is a long way away from Potchefstroom and Kimberly, where the other two matches are.  A number of the writers are going to watch the first match on TV in Johannesburg and then drive to the other two matches. Others are not going to go to any of the matches, watching instead on television.

But as much as budget is a reason, so is the fact that most of them don’t actually like one-day cricket.  Some of them like tests and t20’s, some of them just like tests, and some of them don’t really like cricket at all, they just like how many stories there are in a cricket match.

I hear people saying things like “there’s those horrible overs between over 10 and over 40” and “it’s dreadful, killing the game.” Both of these sentiments make me wonder if they actually like cricket at all.  Because for me the middle overs of an ODI are almost as pure as cricket gets. When I said that to some South African cricket writers over dinner they looked at me as if I was crazy.  One of them actually suggested getting me professional help.  However, let me explain why I love the middle overs.

Part of it probably stems from growing up in New Zealand in the 80’s and 90’s.  The first cricket game I went to by myself was during the Cricket World Cup in 1992, where dibbly-dobbly bowling almost took New Zealand to the title. I also played as a spin bowler who often didn’t spin the ball much, and relied on variations in flight, pace and bounce to get wickets.  However I think my love of ODI cricket, and the middle overs in particular are more than just nostalgia.

Cricket is more than a simple bat and ball game that involves hitting a ball as far as you can.  The subtlety is what makes cricket a better game (in my opinion) than baseball, softball, rounders or any other similar game.  Cricket is, at its core, a game of risk vs reward decision-making. Most batsmen are capable of scoring at close to 2 runs a ball, for a while.  The problem is that when they try that it is very risky.  They tend to get out quite quickly if they aim to go at 2 a ball. So they find ways to reduce that risk. Instead of trying to hit the ball over mid off, they try and place it past him along the ground.  Instead of trying to hit the ball over the covers for 4, they push it down to third man for a single, or leave it alone.

A defensive shot is pure foolishness in baseball, it’s booed and jeered in kilikiti but it has merit in cricket. Even the most attacking players have a balance between attack and defence. But pure defence is only occasionally called for. Different game states call for different mindsets from the batsmen.  But not just the batsmen.  The bowlers and captains also have to make decisions about how attacking/defensively they play.

A out-swing bowler is most likely to get wickets if they bowl half volleys.  The only problem with this is that they are also likely to get hit for four if they do that.  There are times when they are prepared to roll the dice and try, but it’s risky.  So they weigh risk and reward, and tend to only bowl half volleys occasionally (or at least they intend not to bowl them). Likewise a spin bowler is more likely to take wickets with a slow, flighted delivery, that's full enough to bring a batsman forward, but short enough to turn.  However if he bowls that ball too often the batsman is likely to step out of his crease and deposit him over the straight boundary. Accordingly the spin bowler mixes up their flight, pace and line (and sometimes spin direction) to keep the batsman tied down.

A captain has a lot of options when it comes to setting a field, even within the ODI rules about field placement. There are 16 main zones where a batsman scores runs, and 9 fielders.  Accordingly the art to setting a defensive field is often damage limitation. However a good captain and bowler will work together to make sure the easiest runs have an element of danger to them. For example, a captain will set a deep point to an off-spinner, and leave a gap for a batsman to score a single there.  However to do that requires hitting against the spin, and if the ball bounces a little more, or turns a little more, there’s a chance that playing the ball out to that man will result in an edge.

Likewise a popular tactic is for a left arm spinner to come round the wicket and bowl on leg stump, with a field set in close on the off side, and (other than one player) deep on the leg side.  A batsman can score a single off most deliveries without much risk, but to try and score more is a significant risk. And if he misjudges slightly he is at risk of creating a run out, where the man at (normally) shortish mid-wicket can field the ball and throw down the stumps.  That has become a position for some of the best fielders in world cricket.  Previously the likes of Ponting, Rhodes and Harris fielded at backward point, now Guptill, Gibbs and Warner can often be seen in at shortish mid-wicket.

This balance, and battle of wits between batsman and fielders is most on display during the middle overs of an ODI.  There are what Gary Naylor of 99.94 and testmatchsofa brilliantly described as “agreed singles” where both teams are happy with a single off a delivery, and these can be frustrating, but not if you watch what the bowler is trying to do.  A bowler like Andrew Symonds or Chris Harris would often leave mid off back, apparently gifting the batsman an easy single, but then they would back themselves to save any ball hit there.  When watching this period I ask myself what the plan is to try and get a wicket without taking a risk. What is the shot that the captain is letting the batsman have, and what’s the risk for him in that?  These are the questions that make the middle overs enjoyable.

Sure there are less fours, sixes and wickets.  However there is still the battle of wits.  I’m not sure what the attraction is in watching big hit after big hit.  I prefer the balance between the mental and physical battle that only cricket really provides.  And, for me, there’s nowhere better for that than the “boring middle overs.”

Answers from Port Elizabeth

Before the test I write a piece about the questions New Zealand was going to face in Port Elizabeth.  Here's the questions, and the answers to those questions:

General question 1: How do they recover from the psychological disaster of Newlands? 

Answer: Not very well. The team looked defeated quite quickly.

General question 2: How will the bowlers respond to a slower pitch with very little likely to be on offer?

Answer: Not too badly, but they were still outclassed. There was some swing on offer, and Boult, Bracewell and Munro all made the batsmen work hard at the crease.  Wagner and Patel had some good moments, but neither of them will look back on this test with fondness.

General question 3: Will the batsman do as badly against swing as they did against seam movement?

Answer: Not quite, but almost. BJ Wattling was the stand-out, but only really because he was the only one playing with soft hands.  As a result when he edged the ball it went into the ground, not to a fielder.

 Specific questions:

• Can Guptill find a way to rotate the strike? 

No - his 48 included 10 fours.

• Will McCullum bat as responsibly on a pitch that’s slower? 

Yes. He batted well until Petersen turned up both times.

• Will Williamson, Flynn and/or Franklin find a way to score as well as occupying the crease? 

No. Flynn didn't even occupy the crease.

• Will Brownlie adapt to a slower pitch, where he can’t use the pace of the ball as easily? 

He wasn't as commanding, but he still batted well in the second innings.

• Will Wattling recover his form that he has previously shown on slow tracks? 

Yes. He scored 63 in both innings.  Clearly the batsman in the best form in the NZ team.

• Will Bracewell find a way to get out the better batsmen without getting much assistance from the pitch? 

Yes - this was a real improvement by Bracewell. He bowled as well as I've seen him.

• If he plays, will Patel find a way to take wickets as well as containing the batsmen? 

No to both.  He took 1 wicket in almost 37 overs  and went at more than 3.5 an over.

• Will Trent Boult be able to bowl in his first spell as well as he bowled in his third spell at Newlands, and will he be able to dislodge the tail-enders as well as the quality batsmen? 

No. He created some chances that didn't get wickets (a dropped catch, and a catch that should have been referred) but he looked a lot more threatening in his 3rd spell than in his first again.

• If Neil Wagner plays, does he have the weapons to dislodge quality batsmen who are not frightened by his pace?

He did manage to find the edge of Graeme Smith's bat a number of times, but he just wasn't consistent enough to really build pressure.  He is a capable bowler, but hasn't really shown it at test level yet.

Overall the New Zealanders failed to answer the questions that this test asked of them, and as a result were soundly beaten.

A New Structure for International First Class Cricket?

An empty stadium - what this aims to avoid

The mauling of New Zealand by South Africa led to some people questioning why these teams should even be playing each other. "Surely New Zealand are just so bad that they should be in a second division" was the cry.

I personally don't think that this has merit. This series was particularly one sided. But it wasn't much different to Australia vs India last year. Or New Zealand vs Zimbabwe, the first two matches of Australia vs Sri Lanka, etc.

It also was less than twelve months ago that the same teams played out a 1-0 series over 3 matches. New Zealand were a worse team, without Southee, Ryder, Taylor and Vettori, and South Africa were better, on the back of a tour to Australia, and in familiar conditions.

The nature of test cricket, however, is that when teams are mismatched across the park, that the game can blow out quickly. Accordingly it is sensible to want teams to only play other teams of a similar ability.

It also seems ridiculous that the Kenyan team of the early 2000's never got to play a test, and yet the Zimbabwe team (who were vastly inferior) did. The path into test cricket is a political one, not a cricketing one, and that seems wrong.

However, there is a history to test cricket that is worth preserving. Records, like Don Bradman's 99.94 or Barnes' 49 wickets in a series, are part of the folklore of cricket, and while Barnes' record was against a particularly poor South African side, it is still more meaningful than if Ili Tugaga was to take 51 wickets in a 6 match series between Samoa and New Caledonia.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think have a possible solution that preserves the integrity of test matches, while allowing a path through for lower teams.

Firstly the top 16 teams in the world should broken up into divisions of 4 teams. However these should not be exclusive divisions. Test cricket should also be run on a 4 yearly basis. The first 3 years being the league phase and then the 4th year the championship year.

Teams in the top division would play a 5 match home and away series against each other every 3 years. This means one home series and one away series against a top opposition every year. They would also play 4 cross-over series against a second division team. These should be 3 match series, played either at home or away.

Teams in the second division would play a 4 match home and away series against each other every 3 years, as well as the 3 match cross over series against the top teams and also 2 match cross over series against the next tier of teams. These would all be considered test matches.

The third division teams would only have their matches against second division teams count as test matches. They would also play a 3 first class match series, home and away, against teams in their division, and also a 2 match first class series against teams from division 4.

Division 4 teams would play home and away series of first class matches against each other, the cross-over matches against division 3 teams and then also play matches against teams in their continental region.

This means that the major series (Ashes, Frank Worrell, D'Olivera etc) would still happen, but they would be every 4 years if there is a large difference between the team's playing abilities or twice every 4 years if the teams are both in the same division.

Here are some possible schedules for England, India and Afghanistan based on the current rankings on Idle Summers, (who I feel does a better job of test rankings than anyone else).

Year 1

England would tour South Africa for the D'Olivera Trophy (5 matches) and Sri Lanka (3 matches), and receive a visit from Australia for the Ashes (5 matches). They would end up playing 13 matches that year.

India would tour West Indies (4 matches) and Bangladesh (2 matches), and host New Zealand (4 matches) and South Africa (3 matches). A total of 13 matches in the year.

Afghanistan would tour Ireland (3 fc matches) and UAE (2 fc matches) and receive visits from New Zealand (2 tests) Bangladesh (2 tests) and Scotland (3 fc matches). They would play 4 tests and 8 first class matches.

Year 2

England would tour Pakistan and Australia (5 matches each) and host India and the West Indies for 3 matches each. They would play 16 matches that year

India would have a busy year, touring England (3 tests) and Sri Lanka (4 tests) and hosting West Indies (4 tests), Australia (3 tests) and Zimbabwe (2 tests). 16 matches in the year.

Afghanistan would tour West Indies for two tests, Bangladesh for 3 first class matches and Namibia for 2 first class matches. They would host Zimbabwe for 3 first class matches. 2 tests and 8 first class matches in the year.

Year 3

England would host Pakistan and South Africa for 5 tests each, and travel to New Zealand for 3 tests.

India would tour New Zealand (4 tests), Pakistan (3 tests) and Afghanistan (2 tests), and host Sri Lanka for 4 tests and Ireland for two. They would play a total of 15 tests in the year.

Afghanistan would host Ireland for 3 first class matches, Kenya for 2 first class matches and India for 2 tests. They would tour Zimbabwe (3 fc matches) and Sri Lanka (2 tests).

There may have to be games played outside of countries for matches that they are hosting. For example, teams may be unwilling to travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan due to safety concerns, so those matches might be scheduled in the UAE for Pakistan and Bangladesh for Afghanistan (for example). Matches that are unable to take place due to political reasons (ie if Fiji made the grade, NZ currently has a sporting boycott on matches in Fiji, and on Fijian sportsmen who have relatives in the military regime.) either a compromise could be worked out or the teams could split the points.

At the end of the cycle the top team in each division would be promoted, the bottom team relegated. The winner of the inter-continental cup would be promoted to division 4 in place of the team that was at the bottom of that division. The only exception would be that the winner of the world test championship would always be given a spot in the top 4, so if a team from outside there made it in, every other team would move down one position.

The ICC would have to fund teams in division 3, paying a proportion of their costs, and completely fund teams in division 4 for travel and accommodation. Television rights would cover the costs of teams in the top 2 divisions without any assistance.

While this format wouldn't eradicate sides getting destroyed, it might mean that it happens less often, and we would get more high quality cricket between those matches. It would also mean that there would be a level playing field for every team, and every player to succeed.

The right attitude

Brett Lee bowling against Australia. Photo courtesy Rikx

When Bill Lawry asked Adam Parore prior to the 2001/2 New Zealand tour of Australia if he wanted to be like Ian Healy, he was astounded by the response. Parore replied that while he wanted to do the same role, he felt that he was better than Healy already, and why would he only want to have his results. Lawry, who has a reputation for his love of all Australian cricketers, commented positively about Parore's confidence.

In that same tour Stephen Fleming was asked by a member of the Australian press if he was hoping to try to get close to the Australian team. His reply was that he was aiming for a 3-0 series win.

In the end the series was drawn 0-0 with Australia narrowly avoiding a loss in two matches and New Zealand batting for half an hour with the final two at the wicket in the other match.

Coming into the first match New Zealand were in tatters. They had struggled against some state second XI's and there were serious doubts about the solidity of the top order. Their bowling attack was described as shaky and pop-gun. The first test initially didn't do much to allay those concerns. O'Connor limped out after 17 overs with figures of 0/67, Nash picked up 0/93 and the only bright spark was Cairns, who's 5 wickets cost 146.

Australia posted 486, kept in check largely through the contribution of medium pace part-timers Astle and McMillan. In the next innings New Zealand were quickly reduced to 55/4. But they didn't give in, and despite struggling to avoid the follow on, declared at 287/8. Australia scored some quick runs and left New Zealand a target of 284 in 57 overs.

The game ended with New Zealand only 10 runs short with 4 wickets in hand and Lee and McGrath bowling as wide as they could get away with in order to prevent New Zealand being able to score the runs.

In that series, the lowly ranked and unfancied kiwis went in with an attitude that didn't care about the rankings or reputations, but instead believed in their own ability, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The result was a team that almost beat one of the greatest teams of all time in a great 3 match series.

Unfortunately in this tour, where a lowly ranked and unfancied kiwi side also take on one of the greatest teams of all time, the New Zealand team have said things like "we're ranked 8th for a reason" and "We've just got to make sure we get better and compete for longer in this series." The aim and expectation was to compete, not to win.

Regardless of the lack of quality of a team, and the ability of their opposition, every team should approach every match with an expectation of winning the match, and a plan as to how they are going to do it. That, and only that, is the right attitude to play cricket with.

Questions for New Zealand in Port Elizabeth

A view of Port Elizabeth from Summerstrand beach

Heading into the second test the Black Caps need to take a leaf out of Graeme Smith’s book.

In the press conference after the first match, he was asked about the mental toughness of the South African team. He commented that they had come though the hard times, and built up resilience. It was through the hard times that learned how to take advantage of opportunities when they arose.

Their win in Perth was, in some ways, made possible because of the hard times in Brisbane and Adelaide. But it was also possible because the players had built up a large reserve of experience of finding a way to hold on through the hard times.

In the first test New Zealand were put through some tough times but were found wanting. They were asked questions that they had no answers to.

The first question was asked by Vernon Philander, who bowled a sensational spell. Some of the deliveries that the batsmen got from him were almost unplayable. However they were unplayable largely because the batsmen were neither forward nor back and as a result allowed him to bowl to them. This might have been understandable if they had learned to play their cricket in somewhere like India, where playing on a green wicket is foreign, but these players have almost all grown up in New Zealand, where playing on a pre-Christmas wicket is something that most batsmen have to do every year.

The second question was caused by the bounce. When James Franklin managed to hit Alviro Petersen on the hand with one that got up it was clear that this was a particularly bouncy pitch. It was even more evident when Steyn and Morkel were putting the ball up at rib height for the New Zealand tail-enders. Most of the New Zealand batsmen didn’t get the opportunity to answer that question in the first innings, but in the second innings it was asked again, and they were generally found wanting again. While they managed to not get out to too many short balls they struggled to score and generally survived more by good fortune than good management.

The third question was how they would reply to being put under so much pressure from the scoreboard. When Doug Bracewell picked up Graeme Smith in the second over, it looked like they were going to respond well, but after lunch they looked like a defeated team. While that was understandable in one respect, the South Africans still needed to bat on the pitch, and gifting them easy runs through poor fielding and loose bowling was not the correct response. There was sufficient life in the pitch that good bowling and fielding would have caused problems for the South African batsmen.

The fourth question was would they learn from the first innings. The answer to that was somewhat equivocal. The batsmen used the crease well against Philander. Guptill tried to turn the strike over by hitting the ball squarer, playing the right shot to the right ball, but just executing incorrectly. However most of the batsmen struggled to score off the back foot. Wattling, Flynn and Franklin all showed admirable patience, but failed to take advantage of a number of scoring opportunities, and so allowed the bowlers to implement plans.

The second test is at St Georges Park a ground that has traditionally been a lot slower and does a lot less off the seam than Newlands but it also traditionally swings more. So now some new questions await the New Zealand team. How do they recover from the psychological disaster of Newlands? How will the bowlers respond to a slower pitch with very little likely to be on offer? Will the batsman do as badly against swing as they did against seam movement?

There are also more specific questions:

• Can Guptill find a way to rotate the strike?
• Will McCullum bat as responsibly on a pitch that’s slower?
• Will Williamson, Flynn and/or Franklin find a way to score as well as occupying the crease?
• Will Brownlie adapt to a slower pitch, where he can’t use the pace of the ball as easily?
• Will Wattling recover his form that he has previously shown on slow tracks?
• Will Bracewell find a way to get out the better batsmen without getting much assistance from the pitch?
• If he plays, will Patel find a way to take wickets as well as containing the batsmen?
• If Bruce Martin plays instead, will he be able to cut out the one bad ball an over that he tends to bowl?
• Will Trent Boult be able to bowl in his first spell as well as he bowled in his third spell at Newlands, and will he be able to dislodge the tail-enders as well as the quality batsmen?
• If Chris Martin plays, will he be able to find the length again that has given him so much success against left-handers in the past?
• If Neil Wagner plays, does he have the weapons to dislodge quality batsmen who are not frightened by his pace?
• If Mitchell McClenaghan plays can he bowl with pace and accuracy for more than 3 or 4 overs?

The New Zealand team certainly went through tough times in Newlands. They now need to show that they have learned from that, and can answer the new questions that this match will ask. Until the Black Caps get on the pitch it’s hard to know what answers they have, and if those answers are going to be sufficient.

Book review: Guile and Spin by Stuart Larner

Guile and Spin by Stuard Larner is a novel based around a tennis coach taking up cricket in order to earn a grant for his recreation centre. It is set in a small town in England, and follows the interaction between a handful of characters through a cricket season.

When I first started reading Guile and Spin, I was quite disappointed. The book starts off going into excruciating detail about everything in a way that is quite distracting. The writing at first seemed quite clumsy and the characters quite plastic. However, the book is written as a fun read and not as a piece of high brow literature and it succeeds in that. Eventually I quite enjoyed it.

Once you look past the overly stereotyped characters, and the annoying detail, the story is a good fun read, that has a couple of plot layers, some of which are fairly predictable, but others that throw up some surprises.

It is ideally suited to the e-book format, and would be a good read while sitting on public transport. It's also probably a great read for a teenager who is a fan of cricket. I could imagine a number of the boys that I coach really enjoying reading this.

In summary, it's not going to win any prizes for literature, but it is a fun read, that may be a very good Christmas present for a cricket obsessed teenager.

You can purchase the book on Amazon here

A Statistician's Look at New Zealand Cricket

I’m really a statistics writer. I’m not the first call for any pieces about management styles, off the field behaviour and so on. When I write about cricket I generally write about what happens on the park, and particularly about the results, and what can be found from analysis. However the current situation in New Zealand Cricket is one that is fascinating to me. The current “crisis” seems to be one that has been misunderstood, misreported, over-estimated and entirely avoidable. So I thought I’d take a statistical enquiry type approach to the current situation, and see what came of it.

The statistical enquiry cycle has 5 parts: Problem, Plan, Data, Analysis and Conclusion.

Problem: Why is there an environment in NZC where a breakdown between captain and coach can have catastrophic consequences and be played out in the public domain as appallingly as this one has.

Plan: Look back over the last 6 years of New Zealand Cricket’s history and see if there is a pattern, and anything that might be the reason:

Data: In a statistical enquiry this is where I gather the numbers. Obviously that’s not so relevant in this situation. So instead I went through just over 4000 articles in three different news archives that related to New Zealand Cricket. Here is a time-line of some of the significant events in New Zealand Cricket over the last 6 years. I’ve broken it up into Governance, Management, Leadership and Players; but some of the issues related to more than one category, so they could have fit across more than one. In these situations I picked what I felt was the most appropriate.

Date	Governance	Management	Leadership	Players
Jan-2006				Cairns retires
June-2006		Snedden announces 5 year test plan. Incuded 2 tests in 18 months.
July-2006			Andy Moles appointed as ND coach
Sept-2006	Don Neely replaces John Reid as president of NZC
Dec-2006		Snedden steps down	Dayle Hadlee appointed bowling coach
Jan-2007				Astle retires
Apr-2007				Fleming retires as ODI captain
June-2007		Justin Vaughan appointed new CEO. Forms committee to look at Bracewell’s position as coach. Includes Ric Charlesworth	Wright turns down Australian academy, expresses interest in working with NZ cricket.
July-2007			Bracewell re-appointed for 2 more years. Mark O’Neill new bating coach. Wright to have a (largely unspecified) role. Bracewell loses veto over selectors
Aug-2007	Heath Mills expresses concern about the newly mooted ICL. Asks NZC to talk with ICC about it.		Nash, Turner, Hadlee and Bracewell all re-appointed as selectors. Haslee and Nash given 1 year contracts, Turner and Bracewell 2 year contracts	Bracewell drops Fleming from t20’s. appoints Vettori captain
Sept-2007				Vettori given test captaincy. Fleming says he will stay on.
				Cairns, Harris, Astle and H Marshall all sign for ICL
Oct-2007			Ric Charlesworth quits as high performance manager	Craig McMillan retires
				B McCullum made vice captain
Nov-2007			Wright appointed high performance manager	Andre Adams makes himself unavailable for ODIs
Dec-2007		Richard Hadlee initially left off guest list for Chappell-Hadlee fixture.
Jan-2008				Bond signs with ICL
Feb-2008		Vaughan allows Auckland to play James Anderson, despite opposition from other asociations.		Fleming retires
				Ryder incident in bar
				Lou Vincent & Adam Parore join ICL
May-2008			Bracewell announces he will quit April 2009	Andre Adams becomes a Kolpak player
June-2008		Major changes in the organisation at NZC. 11 positions removed and 20 created. John Wright and Lindsay Crocker’s jobs both disestablished
July-2008			Dermot Reeve appointed coach of CD
Aug-2008		A number of staff leave NZC – Alec Astle, Dayle Hadlee, Dayle Shackel, Warren Frost, Brian Aldridge	Bob Carter appointed Canterbury coach
Sept-2008	Alan Isaac replaces Sir John Anderson as chairman of NZC board after Anderson retires.
Nov-2008		Geoff Allott appointed general manager of cricket.	Andy Moles appointed coach
		NZC apologises to West Indies for “it’s all white here” slogan
Dec-2008			Mark Greatbatch appointed as advisor to national selection panel
Jan-2009			Heath Mills criticizes selectors for not communicating with players when they are dropped.
Feb-2009			Dave Currie appointed manager
			Mark O’Donnell appointed assistant coach
Apr-2009			Moles asks to become a selector.
June-2009		State Insurance pull out as sponsor		Bond becomes available after ending ties with ICL
Aug-2009			Moles and Vettori added to selection panel, replacing Nash
Oct-2009		First Class competition moves to home and away format.	22 – reports players unhappy with Moles	McCullum loses vice captaincy
			23- Vettori gives some support to Moles
			24- Moles quits.
Nov-2009		Name of first class comp returns to Plunket Shield	John Wright to assist Vettori with national team
Jan-2010			Greatbatch appointed coach	Taylor named “stand-by captain”
Feb-2010		NZC announce partnership with USACA. Schedule matches in Florida	Martin Crowe appointed “batting advisor”
Mar-2010	NZC agrees to nominate John Howard, rather than original pick, Sir John Anderson as new ICC president.	NZ pull out of Zimbabwe series
May-2010			Roger Mortimer joins as performance director.
June-2010	John Howard rejected as ICC president			McCullum gives up keeping in tests.
Aug-2010	Alan Isaac appointed as ICC vice-president. Chris Moller takes over as NZC chairman		Shane Bond assistant coach at CD
			Trent Woodhill appointed as assistant coach
Oct-2010	Robbie Hart appointed to board
	Board calls for sweeping review post Bangladesh clean-sweep
Nov-2010		Geoff Allott resigns.	Duncan Fletcher comes in temporarily as consultant
Dec-2010	Bond, Martin Crowe and Gerard Gillespie bought into cricket committee.	Another deal with USACA	John Wright replaces Mark Greatbatch as coach. Vettori loses selector role.
Jan-2011			Alan Donald joins as bowling coach
Mar-2011				Vettori retires from T20i
Apr-2011	Crowe quits cricket comittee		Buchanan appointed director of cricket.
June-2011			Donald quits as bowling coach	Players consulted on the leadership qualities of Taylor and McCullum
			National selection managers role introduced, given to Greatbatch temporarily	Taylor appointed as captain, after rigorous process
			Trent Woodhill reappointed	Vettori quits ODIs
July-2011			Hesson appointed Kenyan coach
			Damian Wright appointed bowling coach
			Mike Sandle appointed manager
Sept-2011		Vaughan steps down as CEO	Kim Littlejohn appointed national selection manager
Dec-2011		David White appointed CEO
Mar-2012				Ryder & Bracewell dropped for breaking protocol
				Ryder takes indefinite break from cricket
Apr-2012		NZC signs 8 year media deal		ICC rule Wagner eligible for NZ
May-2012		Therese Walsh comes onboard to run NZC’s part of the 2015 World Cup	John Wright turns down a new contract with NZC
July-2012			Mike Hesson named as new coach	Williamson named interim captain while Taylor injured and McCullum rested
				Ryder makes himself eligible for Wellington
Aug-2012			Bob Carter appointed as assistant coach
			Damian Wright steps down as bowling coach
Sept-2012	Review of the board completed. 39 recommendations were made, and published.	Friday night TV deal announced.
Nov-2012	Stephen Boock named NZC president, Greg Barclay appointed as director		Turner and Crowe appointed talent scouts	Hesson approaches Taylor with Sandle and Carter, tells him that he is going to recommend a leadership change to the board after the tour.
Dec-2012	Chris Moller announces a special general meeting to look at a new constitution for New Zealand cricket.			McCullum appointed captain. Taylor rejects offer of split captaincy, steps down from South Africa tour.

Analysis: This is where I normally do some calculations, arrange the data into a nice table, and perhaps draw a graph. None of those things work here, so instead I’ve looked at some of the trends in the stories.

The one constant in New Zealand cricket over the past 6 years has been change. During that time the team has had 5 coaches, at least 11 selectors and at least 16 assistant or specialist coaches. There has been a litany of job titles for people too. General manager of cricket, chairman of selectors, convenor of selectors, national selection manager, high performance manager, performance director, director of cricket selection advisor, batting advisor etc. There have also been 6 captains for the international team (although Kane Williamson was only as an injury replacement and Jamie How was only for a tour match)

There have been a number of quite significant changes in the power balance between the captain and the coach. First there was a confrontation between Bracewell and Fleming. Then Moles and Vettori. Then Hesson and Taylor. The role of the captain has changed a number of times. Vettori was a selector, and for a while was actually the coach as well (although that was only for about 2 weeks while the team was between coaches). However this is not an issue that is limited to New Zealand cricket. There were similar issues in Australia between Warne and Buchanan and most spectacularly in England between Pietersen, Flintoff and a range of coaches.

An interesting story came out in 2009 where Richard Hadlee felt that Fleming had downgraded the role of coach in New Zealand. That balance in power has certainly been an issue.

Likewise there was an issue with player power in Central Districts while Dermot Reeve was coach, and almost one in Auckland not long after Paul Strang took over. In that situation Auckland Cricket acted quickly, brought in someone extra to help sort out the communication and define the roles between the senior players and the coach.

Conclusion: This is not the first time that there has been a power issue between coach and captain in New Zealand Cricket, or in international cricket in general. It is something that has been bubbling under the surface for a while. New Zealand Cricket probably need to do what Auckland did: bring in someone who is respected by both the coaches and the players, get them to work with both groups to define clearly the roles and expectations of the coach and captain. And then stick with it.

There have been so many changes in New Zealand Cricket over the past 6 years, that consistency is probably better than making more changes. However the roles need to be more clearly defined, and there needs to be a third person introduced to make sure that the two are working together correctly. That person may be the manager, or the director of cricket or someone else, but whoever it is needs to get involved before this happens a fourth time.

6 reasons I'm not surprised by the Auckland Aces success

The Auckland Aces seem to have taken many people by surprise by being so competitive this far into the Champions League T20.

I predicted that they would make the semi-finals at the start of the tournament. Here's why:

1. Completeness.

The Aces have not lost any players to any other teams or injury. Every player was available for them. This is something that most teams can not say.

2. Composure.

The Aces have 12 players in their squad with international experience. This makes a big difference as they are more used to playing in different conditions, and in front of bigger crowds.

3. Conditions.

South Africa at this time of the year is similar to New Zealand in late November. The pitches are a bit unpredictable, the weather is changeable and the outfields are a similar pace. Not many other teams are comfortable in these conditions.

4. Competition.

The HRV Cup has only 6 teams in it. This means that the player pool is not diluted much. Most teams in the New Zealand competition have at least 6 international players in them, if not more. There are no easy games, and not many players that you can target. The proof of this is that most NZ players have significantly better averages when playing domestic cricket overseas than when playing at home (batting and bowling).

5. Collecting.

The Aces have a raft of players who are outstanding at fielding and running between the wickets. This is often the difference between teams in close matches. With Kitchen, Hira, Guptill and Vincent they have 4 of the best fielders in world cricket. There are less easy runs against Auckland, and they are so quick between the wickets that they find runs that many other teams can't score, by hitting the ball straight to a fielder and running.

6. Closeness.

For the last couple of years the Aces played a short walk from a good friend's place, and so I saw a lot of them play. This naturally results in me having a certain bias towards them. But at least I can admit it.

Match report 2nd ODI WI v NZ Kingston

Chris Gayle is too good at the moment.

The rest of the West Indian players scored 180 off 193 (incl extras), roughly 5 and a half an over. New Zealand scored 260 off 47 overs, roughly 5 and a half an over. And yet this match was not even close. Gayle is just too good.

The match had the usual ebbs and flows, but throughout it West Indies were better in almost every area.

It started with New Zealand keeping the West Indies under some control for the first 4 overs. West Indies were 1/10, and it was looking like the decision to bowl first was a good one. Then Gayle hit 3 sixes off Kyle Mills.

Despite New Zealand's fielding and bowling being a lot sharper than in previous games, the score kept climbing. For a large section of the game they were looking like they were going to get more than 350. At the other end first Dwayne Smith then Marlon Samuels kept the pressure on the New Zealand attack, occasionally scoring with big shots, but feeding Gayle the strike well.

Gayle seemed to make a special effort to attack Mills and that was probably the best battle of the match. Mills got his man eventually, but he had conceded 34 runs off the 33 deliveries that he bowled to Gayle. The other key battle was Samuels against Nethula. Nethula made life difficult for Samuels, who looked eager to get on top of his fellow spinner. Nethula held Samuels to 19 off 26 deliveries.

West Indies looked all set to explode on 227 off 37, but the New Zealand bowlers stepped up at the death. West Indies only scored 66 off the last 10 overs, a good effort on a 220 pitch, but they really should have been looking for 40 more. Not that it mattered. In the last 6 overs the New Zealand bowlers hit their lengths very well and the West Indian batsmen managed only 3 boundaries.

The New Zealand innings started off well again, having the highest opening partnership for the 4th consecutive match. But Guptill managed to keep picking out fielders. The defining feature of his play in the New Zealand summer was how straight he hit the ball. Often mid on and mid off had to stand so close together that they left gaps in the covers and at mid wicket for him to work singles. Today he managed to hit the ball directly to mid on or mid off a number of times. Part of this may have been due to the West Indian bowling plan.

One of the advantages of playing at home is that you know how a pitch is going to behave, and consequently what length is the hardest to score off. The West Indian bowlers (particularly their spinners and Sammy) bowled a shorter length than the New Zealanders. Chatting to Marlon Samuels after the match he said that that was a deliberate plan, because the pitch tended to hold up as the day went on. Perhaps the difficulty in timing the ball was in part due to this.

The major highlight of the New Zealand innings was BJ Wattling. On Thursday he looked scratchy and out of form. It was almost like he scored the runs more by good luck than good management. Today however he looked classy. It was as though his fifty in the first game convinced him that he could play at this level, and he went out today believing it. His 72* off 62 was as good an innings as you are likely to see, and was a surprise to me, because I have never seen him display that level of ability.

For a brief moment it even looked like Wattling and Oram might take New Zealand home. But 316 was always too much, and it proved to be so.

Today was the West Indies day, and Chris Gayle and Marlon Samuels' day in particular.

Ryder vs Watson

Mark Watson was one of the contributing factors in me starting this blog. He is quite outspoken on the radio, particularly harsh on New Zealand cricketers. I listen to his show, and used to get quite upset at the things he said. As a result I started researching statistics to challenge him on.

The first time was to do with Kyle Mills, whom he said wouldn't make any other team in the world. At the time Mills had almost identical career figures to Waqar Younis. So I rang Watson and spoke to him about it. To his credit he admitted that he was unaware that Mills had such a good record, but then (in typical Watson fashion) he then went on to say that Mills had obviously been very lucky, and if he actually had the work ethic of a triathlete he would have an even better record.

The next time I challenged him was when he was calling for the New Zealand selector to be sacked after moving Brendon McCullum up to opening the batting in ODI's. Again I rang him and pointed out that after they started picking him there regularly he had scored 644 runs in 14 matches, averaging 56 at a strike rate of 109. At this point he changed from criticizing the selectors for picking him as an opener to criticizing McCullum for not scoring converting his 50's to 100's.

And yet I know Watson outside of cricket, and I actually quite like him. When he isn't talking cricket. He has strong opinions, and plays the villain well. However, the cricket fan in me was really hoping for him to get knocked out.

There were three reasons for this.

1. Watson has constantly bagged Ryder for his weight, but I think that Ryder isn't in as bad condition as people think.

He has always moved well in the field, and is surprisingly quick between wickets. As a former triathlete, Watson thinks that to be fit you need to look like a triathlete, (where they need to carry less weight in order to be able to run/cycle long distances) but carrying weight isn't a major disadvantage in cricket, and as a result the size of a player is not such a good indication of his fitness.

2. Boxing training seems to be a good idea for batsmen

The essentials of boxing are moving your feet, avoiding danger and attacking a target. These are quite similar to the skills required when batting. When Ryder first came back from his first try at boxing he looked a much better player for it. He started moving his feet again, and hit 50 against South Africa, before off-field issues sidelined him again.

3. I like boxing ending with a knock-out.

While we complain about DRS decisions, Asoka de Silva giving out everything that touches the pad, Australian umpires not giving out Australia batsmen, at least we have some positive decisions to compare the bad ones to. Boxing has never been an easy sport to judge, but even given this it has a poor record of terrible decisions.

Given this, I was quite pleased when I got up early in Jamaica and watched the fight. I was happy that Ryder won. Happy that it was a TKO, and happy that Watson didn't get hurt too badly.

Ryder showed what I expected him to, good footwork, good timing, good strength and (better than I expected) hand speed which was good enough to rival professional boxers.

He actually showed enough to suggest that he might be capable of fighting someone with skills that are a better fit to boxing than triathlon. The thought of Ryder vs Sonny Bill Williams is one that all New Zealand sports fans would relish, as would a large number of Australia fans.

If you want to watch the fight, try this link.