Slow and steady?

There is a famous fable about a tortoise and a hare. They decide to have a race. The Hare runs off at great pace, gets close to the finish line and decides he is so far ahead he can afford to have a sleep. While he is sleeping, the tortoise catches up, over takes him, and finishes the race just as the hare is waking up. The moral of the story is supposed to be "slow and steady always wins the race."

Of course that moral is ridiculous. Slow and steady gets beaten by moderately fast and steady. Which in turn gets beaten by fast and steady. If slow and steady won the race I'd back myself to beat Ussain Bolt in the 100m. I reckon I can do it much slower than him.

However the true moral is that reliability is a very important virtue. And yet it is a very difficult one for us to take account of. There is inherently more interest in the unusual than the usual. Occasional exceptional performances are given more prominence in our memories than consistently good ones.

For example I can clearly remember Chris Pringle bowling a maiden in the last over of a match when Australia needed 2 runs to win. It was exceptional. Something that I'm never likely to see again. However I also watched a game where Gavin Larsen bowled 10 overs for 12 runs, including 5 maidens. I can't remember a single second of Larsen's performance. We tune out consistency, because it isn't memorable.

When asked who the best bowers in t20 cricket are, it is natural to tend towards the spectacular. We remember Mendis introducing the carrom ball and bamboozling everyone. We remember Malinga sending the stumps flying. We remember Narine, reviving the tradition of the West Indian mystery spinner like in the days of Sonny Ramadhin. We remember Warne saying how he was going to get McCullum out, and then doing it.

However we don't remember Samuel Badree, Daniel Vettori, Mohammed Hafeez, Nathan McCullum, Angelo Matthews or Darren Sammy. These names are ones that we remember, and can at times recall them doing something with the bat, or in the field, but their bowling tends to be unspectacular.

I was chatting with a top football coach recently, and he said to me "that Vettori chap, what he does must be harder than it looks." This guy has coached football at international level, and has been hugely successful at many different levels. His comment indicated the workings of a great sporting mind. He knows that often the things that look easy on a field take a lot more work than the things that look spectacular.

If we can't remember reliability, we need a metric to measure it. The standard cricket averages are not particularly helpful for this, as they can be skewed by occasional particularly good or particularly bad performances. Instead I decided to look at how often a bowler produces a good performance.

That in itself causes some problems. What is a good performance? In a t20 game, the aim of the bowlers is really to defend runs. Taking wickets is part of that, but often the real job is to not concede too may runs. So I'm going to define a good performance as being one where the bowler bowls at least 2 overs and conceded no more than a run a ball.

If every bowlers in the team did this, the maximium their opposition could score would be 120 plus any byes or leg byes. This is almost a guaranteed losing score, so there is some justification for defining 6 an over as a good target.

Here is a list of the number of good performances the top few bowlers have had. The innings column is innings where they have bowled at least 2 overs.

Name	Innings	Innings at 6rpo or less
Saeed Ajmal (Pak)	47	28
Shahid Afridi (Pak)	55	27
DL Vettori (NZ)	33	24
NL McCullum (NZ)	35	20
J Botha (SA)	36	18
Umar Gul (Pak)	49	18
BAW Mendis (SL)	27	17
GP Swann (Eng)	38	17
Mohammad Hafeez (Pak)	31	16
DT Johnston (Ire)	25	15
DW Steyn (SA)	28	15
M Morkel (SA)	30	13
DJG Sammy (WI)	31	13
SCJ Broad (Eng)	41	13
AD Mathews (SL)	25	12
Harbhajan Singh (India)	24	11
SL Malinga (SL)	38	11

The two names at the top of the list have both bowled in a lot of matches, which is what we would expect. Matthew Hayden scored more centuries, fifties and overall more runs than Don Bradman, but it took him a lot more matches to do it. There won't be many people claiming that Hayden was better than Bradman. It's because the number of good performances themselves are not so important as how often you did them.

So I sorted the table by percentages. The numbers were quite interesting really:

Name	Innings	Innings at 6rpo or less	Reliability
DL Vettori (NZ)	33	24	72.73%
BAW Mendis (SL)	27	17	62.96%
DT Johnston (Ire)	25	15	60.00%
Saeed Ajmal (Pak)	47	28	59.57%
NL McCullum (NZ)	35	20	57.14%
GH Dockrell (Ire)	18	10	55.56%
DW Steyn (SA)	28	15	53.57%
DJ Hussey (Aus)	19	10	52.63%
Mohammad Hafeez (Pak)	31	16	51.61%
J Botha (SA)	36	18	50.00%
Shahid Afridi (Pak)	55	27	49.09%
AD Mathews (SL)	25	12	48.00%
Harbhajan Singh (India)	24	11	45.83%
GP Swann (Eng)	38	17	44.74%
M Morkel (SA)	30	13	43.33%
DJG Sammy (WI)	31	13	41.94%
KMDN Kulasekara (SL)	24	10	41.67%

Some of the names at the top of the list are spectacular players: Ajantha Mendis, Saeed Ajmal and Dale Steyn. But there are more of the other sort. Well ahead of the pack is Daniel Vettori, but also Trent Johnston, Nathan McCullum, George Dockrell, Dave Hussey and Mohammad Hafeez.

It's players in this second group that often get forgotten when great teams are picked. One of my favourite cricket analysts, Gary Naylor, wrote an interesting piece about greatness. His definition of greatness is one that relies on the aesthetics of the player. Gavin Larsen could never be a great under that criteria.

And yet perhaps better than being great is being consistently good. Glenn McGrath was consistently good. Shaun Pollock was consistently good. Whereas Brett Lee and Alan Donald were spectacular. We remember Donald, and forget Pollock, despite Pollock having had a much better record.

So I challenge you to look at a different type of greatness. The greatness of being consistently good. Next time you see Nathan McCullum or Mohammad Hafeez bowling, stop to admire how they manage to get fantastic results, without ever looking like fantastic bowlers. That is a form of greatness in itself.

Land of the long list of lefties

In a few hours New Zealand will take the field against South Africa. There are two players likely to be named in the team who's selection will be quite remarkable.

Corey Anderson is a big all rounder from Canterbury (originally) who hits a big ball and bowls left-arm medium fast. He was a prodigious talent at youth level, making the Canterbury side at age 16, while still at school.

Mitchell McClenaghan is a left-arm fast bowler who is a little erratic and injury prone, but who has a tendency to take wickets. Lots of wickets. Think of him as a New Zealand version of Mitchell Johnson. Not always on target, but capable of occasionally bowling a ball that could get through Rahul Dravid or Brian Lara.

While their selections are not in themselves particularly notable, there is one thing that is: they are both left-arm pace bowlers, adding to a very long list of NZ left-armers.

This year New Zealand has used Trent Boult, Niel Wagner, Andy McKay, James Franklin and Michael Bates at the bowling crease. There is only one other year in history when a team has selected 5 left-arm pace bowlers to play international cricket. In 2007 Sri Lanka actually picked 6 (although Zoysa didn't actually bowl in the one match he was selected for).

And New Zealand are probably against the best team to bowl left-arm pace against. South Africa's batsmen have done well against every type of bowling, but they have done less well against left-arm pace than any other type. In the last 4 years they average about 41 against right arm spin, 39 against left-arm spin or right arm pace but only 35 against left-arm pace. An average of 35 suggest that left-arm pace isn't a silver bullet, but it is a significant difference, and one that New Zealand might be aware of.

So far this year most of the South African batsmen have been dismissed at least once by a left-armer, despite many of them having only faced a couple of innings from a left-armer. Here are the stats for everyone who has faced a left-arm pace bowler at least 5 times:

Name	Total Runs	Total Dismissals	Average
Smith	122	1	122
A Petersen	66	4	16.5
Amla	162	2	81
Kallis	100	4	25
de Villiers	142	1	142
Levi	34	2	17
Duminy	21	0	-
du Plessis	96	1	96

The New Zealand bowlers are likely to be eagerly waiting to bowl to Petersen and Kallis. The battle between the South African batsmen and the New Zealand left-armers is certainly one aspect of the tour that I'm going to be looking forward to watching immensely.

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

Does Tendulkar do badly after breaks?

A while ago I was referred on to this article about Sachin Tendulkar having trouble after having a break from cricket. I get sent quite a few Tendulkar stats articles and normally I see them as a bit of a waste of time. There are a lot of articles and most of them are poorly written and make dubious statistical claims. There are some exceptions (Nicholas Rohde's contriversial piece springs to mind), but most are either Indian fans wanting to say that their man is the greatest ever, or anti-Indian fans trying to get a reaction.

When I read Jigar's piece, however it read well, and seemed well researched. My statistics antenna picked up, however when I read through his research, and wondered how significant his findings really were.

Here is a brief summary, for people who haven't read the article: Tendulkar has scored a large number of low scores immediately after returning from an injury or other extended time away from the game.

Jigar's theory was that SRT needed some time to get back to top form, and the troubles against New Zealand were simply because he hadn't been playing enough.

But I wanted to know if the numbers that he had provided were significant. The more I looked at them, the less certain I was. I needed a statistical tool to assess the significance.

To do this in a non-cricketing environment, the first call would have been to look at a confidence interval. Find a 95% confidence interval for the scores where Tendulkar was coming off a break, and, if his actual mean lay outside that, then we could say there was a significant difference. The only problem is that means and standard deviations don't really work with cricket. Not outs make things complicated. I've tried to develop a cricketing equivalent to standard deviation, but have yet to be successful.

My next port of call statistically would be to get an informal confidence interval based on median and inter-quartile range. The problem with this is that again not out's become very tricky to deal with fairly. If a batsman come in with 8 runs to win and scores 2*, how do you count that?

So I had to use a technique that I had heard about, but hadn't actually used myself previously: randomisation.

The idea with this technique is to see if a particular sample fits within the normal range for something. I attended a lecture where it was explained how it was used to test the distribution of berries in a forest and various other conservation related topics. The way that I approached it was this:

Jigar had taken out 47 innings that he described as being shorty after a break. So I looked at those 47 innings and found their batting average. Then I took a random sample of 47 out of the 773 international innings that Tendulkar had played (he's played since I started working on this) and found the batting average of the sample. I took 1002 samples (I intended to take 1000, but forgot to clear my first two test samples before running the program) and looked at how they were distributed.

The 47 innings that came after a break had an average of 41.8.

Here is a graph of my results (I grouped them by the nearest 0.25 of a run).

We can see that the idea of a set of 47 innings having an average of 41.8 isn't particularly unusual. There are a number of samples that were in that region.

We can also see that the distribution looks normal. I calculated the mean and standard deviation of the averages and looked to see how it fitted. Here's the graph of the distribution:

Given that it is so well modeled by a normal distribution, we can use the mean and standard deviation to decide if we can make a call.

The mean of the averages is 49.41. (this is slightly higher than Tendulkar's career average across all formats of 48.68, but close enough to use). The standard deviation was 8.24.

If we were able to make a call that Tendulkar was badly affected by a break, we would expect his average in matches where he has had a break to be at least two standard deviation lower than the mean. This would require the average to be lower than 32.2. Instead his average in the 47 innings that Jigar mentioned was 41.8. It is lower, but we can't really claim that it is significantly lower.

Mini-session Analysis 1st Test, Australia vs Sri Lanka, Hobart 2012/13

Here is the final mini-session analysis for the first test between Australia and Sri Lanka at Bellerive Oval, Hobart, Australia

A mini-session is (normally) half a session, either between the start of the session and the drinks break or the drinks break and the end of the session. Occasionally a long session will have 3 mini-sessions where it will be broken up with 2 drinks breaks.

Mini-Session	Score	Winner
1-1a	Australia 49/1 off 14	Australia
1-1b	Australia 48/1 off 12.2	Australia
1-2a	Australia 39/0 off 15.4	Australia
1-2b	Australia 57/1 off 15	Australia
1-3a	Australia 43/1 off 16	Sri Lanka
1-3b	Australia 63/0 off 17	Australia
2-1a	Australia 27/1 off 12	Sri Lanka
2-1b	Australia 38/0 off 12	Australia
2-2a	Australia 65/0 off 14	Australia
2-2b	Australia 21/0 off 3	draw
	Sri Lanka 21/0 off 7
2-3a	Sri Lanka 24/2 off 10	Australia
2-3b	Sri Lanka 42/2 off 12.1	Australia
3-1a	Sri Lanka 70/0 off 17.5	Sri Lanka
3-1b	Sri Lanka 30/0 off 9	Sri Lanka
3-2a	Sri Lanka 31/0 off 19	draw
3-2b	Sri Lanka 31/1 off 15	Australia
3-3a	Sri Lanka 67/2 off 15.4	Sri Lanka
3-3b	Sri Lanka 20/3 off 3.5	draw
	Australia 27/0 off 14
4-1a	Australia 60/0 off 18	Australia
4-1b	Australia 59/2 off 17	Sri Lanka
4-2a	Australia 63/3 off 14	Sri Lanka
4-2b	Australia 69/4 off 10.5	Australia
4-3a	Sri Lanka 37/1 off 18	Australia
4-3b	Sri Lanka 28/1 off 19	Australia
5-1a	Sri Lanka 45/0 off 17	Sri Lanka
5-1b	Sri Lanka 34/1 off 16	Australia
5-2a	Sri Lanka 25/1 off 14.2	Australia
5-2b	Sri Lanka 17/0 off 9.4	draw
5-3a	Sri Lanka 62/4 off 21	Australia
5-3b	Sri Lanka 7/2 off 4.2	Australia

Final update, click here

Australia win the mini-session count 18 - 8

First drinks, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 1-0

A perfect first hour of a test. The batsmen have struggled at times, and have thrived. The ball swung, and did a bit off the seam, but the bad ball was generally put away. Cowan fell victim to some clever captaincy, where Mahela got into his head by leaving a massive gap for him on the leg side. He was dismissed trying to hit a ball into that gap that should have probably been cut instead.

Lunch, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 2-0

That was a fine test fifty from David Warner, ended with an unfortunate run out. It has been a good first session of cricket. Sri Lanka have generally bowled demanding lines and lengths, and the batsmen have been generally patient. There was one small scare for Australia when Warner edged a good ball from Welegedara through the recently vacated third slip, but other than that the pitch looked quite friendly for the batsmen.

Middle drinks, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 3-0

Australia are doing well here. They have seen off the new ball, and are playing sensible, low risk cricket. Sri Lanka need a breakthrough or else this game is capable of getting away from them very quickly.

Tea, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 4-0

Australia just won that hour, but it was close. Sri Lanka have taken a wicket off a no ball. That is really the ultimate sin. They have now bowled 9 no balls in 2 sessions of cricket. To put that in context, they bowed 5 no balls in the entire series against New Zealand. It makes me wonder if the harder ground in Australia causes the bowlers to spring forward more in their run up.

Final drinks, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 4-1

Sri Lanka just keep chipping away the wickets. They will now be looking forward to the new ball. If they can pick up another one by then, things could really start to get interesting. A good innings from Hughes, he certainly proved me wrong, because I expected Kulasekera to really trouble him.

Stumps, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 5-1

Clarke and Hussey are just in devastating form at the moment. Their average partnership so far this year is 107.9, having put on 1187 runs together in 2012. That's the second highest contribution in a calendar year by one non-opening partnership ever. And they still have a potential 3 innings left this year. They are still 343 runs away from Younis Khan and Mohammed Younis in 2006, but catching them is a distinct possibility now.

First drinks, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 5-2

Shaminda Eranga bowled a magic delivery to dismiss Michael Clarke. He came wider on the crease and angled in towards Clarke's off stump. Then the ball moved away off the pitch, and Clarke was possibly the only batsman in the world good enough to actually hit that one. The Australians managed to rebuild well, but the wicket was such an important one that the hour goes to Sri Lanka.

Lunch, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 6-2

A very good hour for Australia. This isn't a pitch where we are likely to see 60 runs in an hour too regularly, so 38 runs in 40 minutes represents a good return for Australia. Sri Lanka will rue the missed chance, where Randiv missed a difficult chance to catch Wade. They have now missed at least 3 chances, and they could be crucial. If Australia get to 450 on this pitch the game is effectively over for Sri Lanka.

Middle drinks, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 7-2

Another missed chance for Sri Lanka. They may be good enough to take 20 wickets cheaply against Australia. However I'm not sure if they can take 24 or 25 wickets cheaply against Australia.

Tea, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 7-2

While Australia scored much faster than Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankans managed to survive the first bite of the new ball. Often the ball plays tricks for the first 5 or 6 overs, then again overs 13-20. Karunaratne looked particularly impressive.

Final drinks, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 8-2

Two wickets in the hour for Australia, and Sri Lanka are now in trouble. This is the innings that they really would have been targeting to score their runs in.

Stumps, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 9-2

Sri Lanka are in trouble here. They will need a very good day tomorrow to avoid this match ending very badly for them. They still have two solid batsmen left with Mathews and Jayawardene, but they don't have much room for error left. While Sri Lanka won the first 3 overs of the day, the rest of the day was very much Australia's.

First drinks, Day 3: Australia lead the mini-session count 9-3

What a fantastic fight back from Mathews and Dilshan. They need to keep this going for another couple of hours, but they have scored quickly, and put pressure on the bowlers.

Lunch, Day 3: Australia lead the mini-session count 9-4

Dilshan is scoring beautifully. He's brought up his hundred and is looking sharp. Matthews seems to have gone into his shell. He's scored only 10 runs in the last 9 overs.

Middle drinks, Day 3: Australia lead the mini-session count 9-4

Mathews has continued to stagnate. After his solid start he has not really looked likely at all. He's scored only 11 runs in the last 19 overs. For Australia the real bright light with the ball has been Shane Watson. He has kept the batsmen under pressure, and in two minds. While he is at the crease the pitch looks like a minefield.

Tea, Day 3: Australia lead the mini-session count 10-4

Mathews fell to a ball that moved off the seam. This pitch is starting to play some tricks. Dilshan has taken a turn going into his shell now. This time he has scored only 11 runs in 15 overs. Australia have replicated what Sri Lanka did on the first day: kept the scoring down despite not making much progress against the batting.

Final drinks, Day 3: Australia lead the mini-session count 10-5

Good positive play by Prasana Jayawardene has advanced the game in Sri Lanka's favour. They are still behind, but they are getting closer.

Stumps, Day 3: Australia lead the mini-session count 10-5

Australia cleaned up the tail, and their openers managed to survive, but they didn't score many runs, and despite having a chance to start to build an imposing lead, they batted without much intent, and let the game slide somewhat.

There are a couple of possible scenarios for the game tomorrow. One option is that Australia go on to score about 250, then bowl Sri Lanka out on a wearing pitch. However another option is that they take too long to get their 250, and Sri Lanka bat out the final day to draw the test.

First drinks, Day 4: Australia lead the mini-session count 11-5

Great work this morning from Cowan and Warner. This would be one of the most restrained innings I've seen from Warner, similar to his second innings at Hobart last year. Sri Lanka are bowling quite well, and are trying to keep the Australians tied up. Clarke is an aggressive captain, but he will be aware of the power of the Sri Lankan line up, and is likely to make sure they are chasing well over 350.

Lunch, Day 4: Australia lead the mini-session count 11-6

That was a good hour of cricket. Wickets, runs, both teams playing positive cricket.

Middle drinks, Day 4: Australia lead the mini-session count 11-7

Herath looks like a completely different bowler once he has a right-hander to bowl at. The Watson dismissal was a classic orthodox spin wicket. He drew Watson out with the pace, deceived him with the flight and dip, spun past the outstretched bat, and then Jayawardene produced a very sharp stumping. It was almost poetry.

Tea, Day 4: Australia lead the mini-session count 12-7

If Herath can do that against Australia on a pitch that isn't taking turn, what will he do on the SCG? Australia have set Sri Lanka a target of 392. It's an unlikely target, but not an impossible one. Sri Lanka will have to bat well, but they have 5 phenomenal batsmen in their team. Only South Africa at the moment have a reasonable claim to having a better batting line up.

Final drinks, Day 4: Australia lead the mini-session count 13-7

The pitch is starting to look quite tricky to bat on. It looks positively unplayable while Shane Watson is bowling. Some bowlers know how to get the worst out of a pitch, and Watson is certainly one of those.

Stumps, Day 4: Australia lead the mini-session count 14-7

While Sri Lanka have made it to the end of the day only 2 down, Australia are now odds on to win this match. The pitch is quite up and down, and even a good go with the heavy roller in the morning isn't going to make much difference. There is one thing that could make it a lot easier for Sri Lanka, and that is that there is rain forecast for tomorrow. However there's probably not enough rain tomorrow to actually make much of a difference.

First drinks, Day 5: Australia lead the mini-session count 14-8

A very good hour for Sri Lanka. If they have 5 more like that they will win the test. However there were some promising signs for Australia, They managed to get some reverse swing, and drew one false shot out of Jayawardene.

Lunch, Day 5: Australia lead the mini-session count 15-8

The Australian bowlers really dominated that last hour. The key moment was the hopefull review by Sangakkara that turned out to be a good decision. Another interesting thing was the way that the Australian fielders made a point of walking between Sangakkara and Samaraweera whenever they tried to have a chat. I'm not sure what the thinking behind that behaviour was, but perhaps they feel Samaraweera is a little weak mentally, and relies heavily on his batting partner. If that's their tactic, then I think they've done their scouting badly, because Samaraweera is about as tough as they come mentally.

Rain break, Day 5: Australia lead the mini-session count 16-8

Sri Lanka are fighting hard, but Australia are gradually taking the game. These two and Prasanna Jayawardene are quality batsmen, but the pitch is playing too many tricks to expect them to last until stumps.

Tea, Day 5: Australia lead the mini-session count 16-8

Great effort from Mathews and Samaraweera. They have mostly seen off the new ball despite things being really quite difficult. The bounce has been eratic, and they have had their concentration interrupted by rain breaks. Australia are probably still favourites, but I think the draw is starting to look a lot more likely.

Final drinks, Day 5: Australia lead the mini-session count 17-8

Surely Australia can't fail to wrap this up. Could they?

End of match Australia win the match and the mini-session count 18-8

The end had a certain inevitability about it. Sri Lanka fought well, but Australia win the match. Australia played the better cricket and deserved the win. Peter Siddle in man of the match, and he was a fantastic performer, but I think this game was mostly won because Michael Clarke made such a bold declaration at the end of the first innings. He was my man of the match for that.

Mini-session Analysis, 4th test, India v England, Nagpur 2012/13

Here is the final mini-session analysis for the fourth test between India and England at Vidarbha Cricket Association Stadium, Nagpur, India

A mini-session is (normally) half a session, either between the start of the session and the drinks break or the drinks break and the end of the session. Occasionally a long session will have 3 mini-sessions where it will be broken up with 2 drinks breaks.

Mini-Session	Score	Winner
1-1a	England 31/2 off 14	India
1-1b	England 30/0 off 19	draw
1-2a	England 40/0 off 16	England
1-2b	England 32/2 off 16	India
1-3a	England 33/1 off 17	India
1-3b	England 33/0 off 15	England
2-1a	England 42/0 off 17	England
2-1b	England 36/2 off 15	India
2-2a	England 53/3 off 16.5	England
2-2b	India 32/1 off 12	draw
2-3a	India 30/1 off 15	England
2-3b	India 25/2 off 14	England
3-1a	India 26/0 off 17	draw
3-1b	India 33/0 off 15	India
3-2a	India 45/0 off 16	India
3-2b	India 36/0 off 11	India
3-3a	India 42/0 off 16	India
3-3b	India 28/4 off 14.1	England
4-1a	India 29/1 off 12.5	England
4-1b	England 17/0 off 13	India
4-2a	England 31/1 off 16.5	India
4-2b	England 33/1 off 16.5	India
4-3a	England 49/1 off 17.2	England
4-3b	England 31/0 off 15	England
5-1a	England 45/0 off 18	England
5-1b	England 34/0 off 13	England
5-2a	England 34/0 off 15	England
5-2b	England 36/1 off 14	India
5-3a	England 42/0 off 15	England

Last update, click here

England win the mini-session count 14 - 12

First drinks, Day 1: India lead the mini-session count 1-0

When Monty Panesar got a bad decision in the last match, it really wasn't a big deal, because he isn't really likely to score many runs. Losing Alister Cook to a poor decision is a completely different matter. This was a massive bonus for India.

The slow scoring rate that the openers went at wasn't a massive problem if they hadn't been dismissed, but it's very much advantage India after the first hour.

Lunch, Day 1: India lead the mini-session count 1-0

30 runs in 19 overs is very slow going. However it's not a case of the batsmen not showing any intent, it's more that the Indian bowlers have been bowling very straight and quite flat on a pitch that at the moment looks to have more in common with a tortoise than a hare.

Middle drinks, Day 1: The mini-session count is tied up, 1-1

Another very slow hour. This one saw England edge it, but the Indian bowlers are not letting the batsmen have much to play with.

Tea, Day 1: India lead the mini-session count 2-1

When even Kevin Pietersen is scoring slowly it's clear that either the pitch is difficult, or the bowling is very good. I think that the bowling has been demanding, but certainly the pitch is the major factor. Trott will probably be still shaking his head at his decision to leave that ball, it turns out that slow straight ones can be deceptive after all.

Final drinks, Day 1: India lead the mini-session count 3-1

If they keep this over rate up, India are going to through a seriously large number of overs. It will almost be like the 1930's when teams would regularly bowl over 100 overs in a day. Pietersen's wicket was the big news here, at the end of what was possibly his most patient innings, he tried a crazy agricultural shot. There is some sort of irony there.

Stumps, Day 1: India lead the mini-session count 3-2

Joe Root possibly hasn't ever played on a pitch like this. The fact that he has survived over 100 deliveries for 31 runs is certainly going to be encouraging. Prior looked like he was batting on a different pitch to everyone else just like he did in the first test. It was a reasonable final session for England, but I think India are ahead in the match.

Lunch, Day 2: India lead the mini-session count 4-3

Despite the two wickets it really was England's morning. They managed to score relatively quickly, and hence have advanced the game. It's still fairly even, but England will be pleased with their progress.

Stumps, Day 2: England lead the mini-session count 6-4

England will be very happy with their day's cricket. India were probably in the lead at the start of the day, but it is certainly advantage England now. The two wickets in the final hour have really put India in a tricky position for tomorrow morning. The pitch is likely to start deteriorating more tomorrow afternoon, so they really need to start scoring runs. However, being 4 down they need to be cautious, because a dramatic collapse is a distinct possibility if they lose a couple of early wickets. It was an interesting decision of Dhoni's to bat himself at 6 and Jadeja at 7. Taking on that responsibility might be the sign of a captain trying to lift his team. If it works then it's genius captaincy.

First drinks, Day 3: England lead the mini-session count 6-4

India didn't score many runs, but they also didn't lose any wickets. Both batsmen have put away their natural games, each only scoring one boundary off an attacking shot. They are now starting to get to the point where they can start scoring runs. This could be turn into a fantastic match if this pitch actually breaks up. If it doesn't then this could be one of the most boring draws to have ever been played outside the SSC.

Lunch, Day 3: England lead the mini-session count 6-5

India continue to make (very slow) progress. This game isn't moving particularly fast, but it is moving. The new ball is approaching for England. If they can get one more wicket before it arrives, they will hope to finish off India quickly and take a first innings lead. However if India can survive the first 20 overs with the new ball they will be in a good position to build a big score.

Middle drinks, Day 3: The mini-session count is tied up, 6-6

India are making good progress now. Dhoni is playing an innings that is probably going to keep the wolves at bay for a while. He has taken on the responsibility of batting at 6 and so far has played a particularly responsible innings.

Final drinks, Day 3: India lead the mini-session count 8-6

India are probably now in the lead. It has been a fantastic partnership from Kohli and Dhoni. England really need to find a wicket soon. A brilliant 100 from Kohli, this has been an innings of real character. However the job is still not finished, these two (and the next 3) need to put on some serious runs because if the pitch does break up at the end (as it is likely to do) they don't want to be chasing 200 in a couple of sessions, it is very important that they manage to secure a reasonable lead.

Stumps, Day 3: India lead the mini-session count 8-7

One of the most dramatic hours play in this series. Dhoni became the 15th member of the run out for 99 club. At least he isn't like John Beck or Dipak Patel, both of whom never went on to hit a century. England did very well to keep Dhoni away from the strike while he was in the 90s. He went to 90 off 216 balls in over 112.2. He was out for 99 off 246 in over 129.1 meaning that in the 101 balls that England bowled in that time, only 30 went to Dhoni. They managed to keep him in the 90's for over an hour, and it was that pressure that told in the end, resulting in him trying a risky run to try and bring up 3 figures. England are now in a strong position in this match. If they can pick up the last two wickets quickly they can potentially score a relatively quick 250 by the end of the day, leaving India 300 to chase on the last day on a wearing pitch.

First drinks, Day 4: The mini-session count is tied up, 8-8

What a strange hour. India didn't seem to want to score. England didn't seem to want to take wickets. I'm not sure why on either hand. For some reason then at the end of the hour Dhoni declared. I'm interested to see how this develops from here.

Lunch, Day 4: India lead the mini-session count 9-8

England are getting close to batting themselves out of the game here. Positive play is often safer play. They really should try and score runs instead of just batting time.

Middle drinks, Day 4: India lead the mini-session count 10-8

Incredibly slow progress here by England. They need to actually score enough runs to make sure India can't chase them down.

Tea, Day 4: India lead the mini-session count 11-8

A slightly more productive mini-session from England, but still too slow. They need to score runs now, because this pitch is very likely to break up tomorrow.

Final drinks, Day 4: India lead the mini-session count 11-9

England are starting to score some runs, but they are now in a position where they are very unlikely to be able to get into a position where they could win the match. It still might happen, but it was a lot more likely at the start of the day than it is now.

Stumps, Day 4: India lead the mini-session count 11-10

England are executing their plan well. I don't think they have the right plan personally, but they are doing it well. I don't think it's a good idea to ever give up on a winnable game, but perhaps that's part of the reason why I'm not a test captain. (That and not actually being very good at cricket)

First drinks, Day 5: The mini-session count is tied up, 11-11

England are probably safe now.

Lunch, Day 5: England lead the mini-session count 12-11

Trott and Bell have batted very well. They have taken India completely out of this game. It's all about personal averages and scoring psychological points now.

End of match, Day 5: England take the mini-session count 14-12

The match is drawn, but England win the series. It was a clinical performance from England from the last hour of day 3 onwards. From that point on England had their road-map to a series win, and they followed it assiduously.

Is Dale Steyn the best bowler ever?

I recently read a (typically) good piece by Ant Sims about Dale Steyn. Some of the numbers that she came up with were very impressive. It got me wondering. Is Dale Steyn the best bowler ever?

She had the idea to compare him to other bowlers at a similar stage in their career. I decided to do something similar, so I looked at a large number of bowlers who had bowled in either 60 matches or 100 innings to look at how they compared at that point of their career.

Some players tend to hold on for a long time after their peak. Sometimes it is because everyone (including them) thinks that they are just one innings away from recapturing their glory days (think Ricky Ponting), or because they are still one of the best from their nation, even though they are no longer nearly as good as they were (think Sir Frank Worrell). But for what ever reason, about 60 games is often when a lot of bowlers reach their statistical zenith. They are experienced enough to know how to take wickets, but not old enough that they have lost too much energy.

Probably the most important statistic for bowlers in test matches is the average. Once I had pulled out all the bowlers data, there was one extraordinary number in the list: 20.14 by Shaun Pollock. Steyn is in the middle of this list.


The next thing that I look at is strike rate. Steyn is a strike bowler. It is not his job to hold up one end. He is there to take wickets. Strike rate is a measure of how many deliveries it takes a bowler on average to take a wicket. Generally the best bowlers tend to take wickets slightly better than every 10 overs, giving a strike rate under 60.

Here Steyn really shines. He has the second best strike rate of any bowler after 60 matches. And then he's only marginally behind Waqar Younis. Here's another way to put it. The first two bowlers I remember vividly from when I grew up were Malcolm Marshall and Richard Hadlee. Steyn is more likely to get a wicket on any given ball than either of them were.

Another measure is bowling index. This is a more complicated statistic, which is described in the glossary. While it is best suited for comparing bowlers in limited overs matches, it does tell a story in tests also. It really tells us who has kept the batsmen honest while they have been taking their wickets. It's not perfect, but it is interesting. (You may need to scroll to see Steyn's numbers in this one)


Again we see Shaun Pollock on top, and by a reasonable margin, this time ahead of Deadly Derek Underwood. Steyn is near the bottom of the list, along with the majority of the bowlers in the era of boundary ropes and uncompressed bats.

So to answer the question: is Dale Steyn the best bowler ever? Probably not, that's possibly Shaun Pollock, but Steyn is certainly up there with the best.

For a different way of looking at the greatest bowlers ever, and to see where Steyn is placed on that list, you can also try this article that I wrote at the beginning of the year. The numbers need updating, but they were right as at the 7th of January.