Using Added Value to measure cricket performances - Part 1

The palpable drop in air pressure from 41000 people collectively inhaling is something that is hard to understand unless you've experienced it. Dale Steyn was bowling to Grant Elliott.

Eden Park in full World Cup mode.

Elliott had been a controversial selection. In the first 5 matches he averaged 19.25 at a strike rate just below 82. That's hardly justifying the selectors faith in you.  However, an important innings against Bangladesh, followed by a breathtaking 27 off 11 against West Indies gave him momentum going into this match. Often the concept of momentum is a case of us over-fitting. We see a couple of good performances back to back and assume a causative effect, where there really probably isn't one. However, regardless of the causes, Elliott was playing the sort of innings that quickly made the critics forget that they had been calling for the coach's head for selecting him before the tournament.

There was a significant obstacle in his road to glory. Dale Steyn. Quite possibly the best bowler to have ever strapped on a pair of boots. Throughout history there have been terrifying bowlers. Fred Spofforth, Jeff Thompson, Andy Roberts, Waqar Younis and Brett Lee are examples. There have also been bowlers who could work a batsman out and exploit weaknesses unmercifully. Alec Bedser, Richard Hadlee, Wasim Akram and Glenn McGrath all shared this trait. In Steyn, South Africa had someone who was in both camps. Possibly only Larwood, Truman, Lillee, Holding and Marshall have been there like Steyn.

But now there was 2 balls left, and 5 needed. Steyn with his tail up bowling to Elliott on 78 off 72. Elliott had previously hit a bouncer for 6, and Steyn's last yorker had gone for 4. Eden Park's short straight boundary meant that bowling full was risky, and bowling short could ask for a top edge carrying for 6. Better instead to try to get him to hit to the longest boundary so Steyn opted for a length ball....

The palpable increase in air pressure from 41000 people collectively screaming with exhilaration as the ball clears the boundary is something hard to understand unless you've experienced it.

Match 2, NZ vs South Africa preview

Trent Boult may be a key player in match 2

We now have a little more information about Bay Oval, and what it's all about.  We also have seen both teams play.  And really, we don't actually know much more.

Here are some things that I noticed, and some battles to look forward to.

1. Trent Boult vs Quentin de Kock.  de Kock is a good batsman, in good form, but he looked somewhat clueless against Boult, and it looks like he will need to develop a better plan as to how to bat against him.

2. Vernon Philander vs Martin Guptill. Guptill looked completely out of form in the first game, but that's at odds with how well he played in the CPL just recently. Often a batsman looks out of form when a bowler is bowling in places that makes it difficult for him to score.  I think that is what actually happened in the first match. It will be interesting to see if Guptill has managed to figure out how to get some runs off Philander's bowling.

3. Kyle Mills vs Hashim Amla. If Mills plays in this match, it will be interesting to see if he can repeat the dose against Amla. Mills bowled 21 deliveries to Amla, and he managed to only score 12 before getting out. And those 12 mostly came from streaky, un-Amla like shots. Conventional wisdom would say that Amla's too good to repeat that performance, but Mills is a very crafty bowler, and his successes against Chris Gayle say that he is capable of targeting a player and really getting on top of them.

4. Brendon McCullum vs Morne Morkel.  McCullum backs himself to dominate anyone, but he has always found Morkel a difficult bowler to face. Morkel got him in the first match, and McCullum will not want a repeat in the second.

5. Jimmy Neesham vs Dale Steyn. Steyn will be particularly grumpy with the way that Neesham approached their confrontation in the first match. Neesham didn't look phased by the great bowler at all. It will be interesting to see what lengths Steyn bowls to him today.

Betting tips.

If I was betting $50 on this match, here's where it would go:

1. Total match run outs $10 on over 1.5 at $2.80
There were non in the first match, but there were 3 close calls, and that was without the sort of scoreboard pressure that normally brings about run outs. McCullum sets fields trying to get run outs, and ABdV has been working hard on getting the South African fielding back to where they were in years gone by.

2. South Africa top run scorer $10 on AB de Villiers at $5.00
de Villiers has a phenomenal record in the second match of a series. Over the past 3 years he's only had 2 times that I could see that he's hit less than 50 in the second match in a series. He's hit 3 centuries and 2 not out fifties.  He's also got the wood on most of the New Zealand bowlers.

3. New Zealand top run scorer $10 on Tom Latham at $7.50
Latham looked fantastic, and would have been likely to got a big score other than a piece of bad luck against Duminy.

4. Hashim Amla runs $10 on 0-20 at $2.55
I think opening against a line up featuring (at least 2 of) Mills, Southee and Boult is a very difficult prospect.

5. Head to Head $10 on New Zealand at $2.60
New Zealand are a better team than they showed in the last game.  Look for a big step up.

All odds are from NZ TAB and are accurate at time of writing.

Match preview 1st ODI NZ vs SA, Mount Maunganui,

The circular Bay Oval, Mount Maunganui

The countdown to the World Cup finally feels like it's started for real. South Africa are touring New Zealand for 3 ODI matches that are more a means to an end than an end in themselves.  Both teams say that they want to win these matches, and the players who get on the field definitely will.  But they are both aware that the real target is the World Cup.

Surprisingly this match is being played at Bay Oval in Mount Maunganui. It's the 4th ground in the Northern Districts area to hold an international match, and is not going to be used in the World Cup.  However, it is in New Zealand's fastest growing region, and is likely to be a place where a lot of international cricket will be played in the future.  It is also on the east coast, so it is a lot less likely to be rained off in spring time than somewhere like Auckland or Wellington.

As there has never been an international at the ground, there are some aspects that are hard to predict. A par score for the ground really has not been established at this level, and almost all of the players will go in without too much baggage (positive or negative) at the ground.

There were a number of warm up matches played there, and we can tell some things from those.

Firstly, bowlers that tend to bang the ball in were punished.  It seems that the fuller the pace bowlers bowled, the better they did. Secondly the scores were all over the place. Some teams were scoring 300+ while others were struggling to pass 150.  Also, the spin bowlers took lots of wickets but (with two exceptions) went for lots of runs. The two exceptions were Daniel Vettori and local boy Jono Boult (brother of Trent)

The ground is an interesting shape, particularly given it's name of Bay Oval. It is a perfect circle. The boundary is 68m from the centre of the pitch in every direction. This means that it has a straight boundary of 79m and a square boundary of 67m. This obviously favours players who are good at playing the hook, cut and scoop shots (which probably explains why bowlers who bang the ball in get punished).

I've looked through the records of the players at similar shaped, coastal grounds in the past 3 years and there are three names that feature at the top of the list: de Villiers, McLaren and well ahead of all else, du Plessis. The top New Zealand name is Williamson (who is not playing) followed by Neesham.

If I was looking to make a couple of bets, I'd look at putting some money on both du Plessis and McLaren to be top scorer. While it's guaranteed that at least one of these bets will fail, I think it would be a sensible move to cover both.  At time of writing, du Plessis is paying $4.50 and McLaren is paying $26 to be top scorer at the NZ TAB. I think this is good money for both of them. du Plessis has gone past 90 in 5 of his last 9 ODI innings. That's compelling form. I'd look at McLaren for a different reason.

The ball is likely to swing at Bay Oval. It's overcast, with showers likely. The tide will turn at about 11:00, an normally the ball swings around the turn of the tide (either just before or just after). Trent Boult grew up in Tauranga so this is his home ground. If he starts getting the ball to go round corners (as he can) he is almost unplayable. In the matches at the Champions League T20 when the ball swung, he was almost unplayable. To go with that, Kyle Mills has been a beast at similar grounds in recent times. He's averaged 11 at an economy rate of under 4. To back that up, in one of the warm up matches (for Auckland against Afghanistan) he took 2/14 off 7 overs. Mitchell McLenaghan is not in such form, but he has a good record against South Africa, and the ability to hurry up batsmen.  I think it's actually quite likely that New Zealand will take early wickets, and South Africa will need to rebuild. That will create a platform for someone like McLaren to succeed.

As far as New Zealand's batting goes, it is a bit difficult to make too many predictions.  Despite his game being suited to grounds like this, Brendon McCullum has never really been successful at this sort of ground. Neesham is opening for the first time, so that will test his technique more than coming in at 6 does, especially against Steyn, Morkel and Philander (Steyn has the second best figures at grounds like this, after Mills, with an average about 18 and an economy rate just under 5). The other interesting selection is Dean Brownlie. Brownlie is particularly good off the back foot, and has had some success against South Africa, but in every large innings that he has put together, he was dropped early (often more than once). If he gets started, he might be worth putting some money on for NZ top scorer, but I certainly wouldn't back him until he made it to 25.

The other thing to watch out for in this match will be the rain.  There may be some showers early on, but it's quite likely that there will be some serious rain in the evening. This means that there is a reasonable chance that the game will be called off early, and Duckworth-Lewis will need to be used.  I'm a big fan of the Duckworth-Lewis system, but it does hurt teams with good batting depth.  The two teams in world cricket that it works against the most are these two. As a result, the team that bats first is likely to have a slight advantage if it rains.

If I had $50 to bet on this match, I'd suggest these:

1. AB De Villiers to outscore Hashim Amla $10 at $1.92
2. Total match run outs over 1.5 $10 at $3.00
3. Faf du Plessis top South African scorer $15 at $4.50
4. Ryan McLaren top South African scorer $5 at $26.00
5. Whoever bats first to win the match $10 at what ever the odds are post toss.

(all odds from the NZ TAB at the time of writing)

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.

Mini-session Analysis 1st Test, South Africa vs New Zealand, Capetown 2012/13

Here is the final mini-session analysis for the first test between South Africa and New Zealand at Newlands, Cape Town, South Africa

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	New Zealand 28/6 off 10.5	South Africa
1-1b	New Zealand 17/4 off 8.3	South Africa
	South Africa 3/1 off 2
1-2a	South Africa 74/0 off 14	South Africa
1-2b	South Africa 42/1 off 13	draw
1-3a	South Africa 79/0 off 18	South Africa
1-3b	South Africa 54/1 off 17	draw
2-1a	South Africa 44/2 off 14	New Zealand
2-1b	South Africa 39/1 off 13	draw
2-2a	South Africa 12/2 off 4.5	South Africa
	New Zealand 17/1 off 9.3
2-2b	New Zealand 16/1 off 9.3	South Africa
2-3a	New Zealand 96/1 off 16	New Zealand
2-3b	New Zealand 40/1 off 17	draw
3-1a	New Zealand 32/0 off 15	New Zealand
3-1b	New Zealand 31/1 off 15	South Africa
3-2a	New Zealand 20/2 off 13	South Africa
3-2b	New Zealand 22/3 off 7.1	South Africa

Latest update, click here
South Africa win the match by an innings and 27 and the mini-session count 9 - 3

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

Vernon Philander is a one man wrecking machine on a pitch like this. Some of those deliveries moved so sharply that the batsman had no chance, but others moved just enough that the batsman didn't play and miss. New Zealand will be pleased that they have made it past 26.

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

This time it was Dale Steyn's turn. The ball he got Bracewell with really deserved the wicket of a better batsman. There has been some bad shots, but mostly some very good bowling.

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

One of the problems with inswing bowlers is that they can be expensive if they stray in their line. New Zealand have shown that quite clearly. They were always going to miss Tim Southee, but this should have been a good pitch for Bracewell. Instead South Africa have totally dominated this mini-session, just like the other two.

Tea, Day 1: South Africa lead the mini-session count 3-0

Finally New Zealand managed to hold their own in an hour. James Franklin is coming off a longer run up, and is looking almost like the bowler he was when he first broke into international cricket. Amla played a peach of an innings. Sometimes a player looks like he is batting on a different pitch to everyone else. That was Sangakkara in the Boxing Day test and it was Hashim Amla today. He really is a phenomenal player.

Final drinks, Day 1: South Africa lead the mini-session count 4-0

Another dominant hour by South Africa. It is hard to remember any day in a test match that has been as one sided as this. Perhaps the third day of the New Zealand-Zimbabwe match in Napier last year. Either way there is a big difference between the two teams on today's evidence. The only bright spot for New Zealand has been the bowling of James Franklin. While Franklin is not looking like a world beater, he is bowling much better than he has in a test for a long time.

Stumps, Day 1: South Africa lead the mini-session count 4-0

Alviro Petersen brought up a well deserved hundred. A fine knock on a difficult pitch. This should go down as one of his best ones in his career. That was probably the best hour of cricket of the test. Good bowling, batting and fielding, finally. For the majority of the rest of the day there was only one side playing good cricket.

First drinks, Day 2: South Africa lead the mini-session count 4-1

New Zealand finally won an hour. They probably need to win about 5 more in a row to get even close to being level. How South Africa handle the new ball will be the point of interest in the next hour. If Boult can find some swing with the dispersing cloud cover then New Zealand could wrap up the tail quite quickly.

Lunch, Day 2: South Africa lead the mini-session count 4-1

An even hour, but it could have been New Zealand's. They decided to not refer a lbw decision, which turned out to be plumb. AB de Villiers has looked fantastic with the bat, and Trent Boult has started to find some movement. An interesting decision from McCullum was to bring on Jeetan Patel with a fairly new ball. He managed to create some pressure, almost picking up a wicket in his first over. It may have just been a pre-break change to try and disrupt the batsmen's concentration, so it will be interesting to see if McCullum persists with it.

Middle drinks, Day 2: South Africa lead the mini-session count 5-1

It seems like a very good declaration from Smith. There is still some life in the pitch, and clouds overhead. Some of the balls are really doing crazy things, particularly when Philander is bowling. I actually think Kallis is going to be the most dangerous bowler today, if he gets the ball.

Tea, Day 2: South Africa lead the mini-session count 6-1

This was an absorbing hour of play. Test match cricket at it's best for the purists. It was a battle of wills and wits. The South African bowlers were bowling in good areas, and the New Zealand batsmen were making an effort to not play anything they didn't need to.

The decisive moment of the hour was Kallis getting Williamson to play away from his body with some clever bowling. He first bowled a ball to encourage Williamson into playing a shot. A short ball just outside off stump. Williamson played it through the covers for 2. Next ball Kallis bowled one a little wider and a little quicker, and Williamson fell for the trap. He's a good young player, and he learns well, but he was out-foxed by the veteran there.

New Zealand are putting up a good fight, but South Africa are marching assuredly towards victory.

Final drinks, Day 2: South Africa lead the mini-session count 6-2

A fantastic partnership between McCullum and Brownlie well and truly gave this hour to New Zealand. They put on 89 off 81 balls in a fantastic counter-attack. Brownlie's innings is reminiscent of the way he played in Brisbane a year ago. He probably doesn't really want to get a reputation as being good when the team is getting thrashed.

Stumps, Day 2: South Africa lead the mini-session count 6-2

What a great day of cricket. Unfortunately it was totally ruined by yesterday's mismatch. New Zealand will be hoping to wake up to clear skies tomorrow. The game is really just about how South Africa win it, and how well the New Zealanders recover. At the moment they are sending a signal that the next test is going to be worth watching.

First drinks, Day 3: South Africa lead the mini-session count 6-3

New Zealand made it through an hour without losing a wicket. However there is a point where game is really just going through the motions until the new ball arrives. Kallis might still be a handful in this last hour if they give him the ball.

Lunch, Day 3: South Africa lead the mini-session count 7-3

That would have been New Zealand's hour, until Brownlie hit the new ball down Robin Peterson's throat. It was a terrific innings from Brownlie, who came out and really counter attacked yesterday afternoon, before consolidating in the evening. He brought up his maiden ton with a 6, and actually went from 92 to 104 with 2 sixes in 5 balls. This match is still South Africa's (it would require something incredible for there to be any result other than a South African win) but New Zealand have competed well in days 2 and 3.

Middle drinks, Day 3: South Africa lead the mini-session count 8-3

South Africa are starting to turn the screws. Philander has found the seam of the ball, and is starting to nip it around. It sounds very simple, bowl the ball at a reasonable pace, put it in the right area on the pitch and hit the seam, but nobody other than Philander does it so consistently.

End of match, Day 3: South Africa take the mini-session count 9-3

A brave effort from New Zealand, but they were never going to be able to make up for the first day. The final act of the match probably summed up New Zealand's test, with Chris Martin being run out needlessly. It appears that he can't even bat from the non-strikers end.

There are some positives to take from the match for New Zealand, but not many. Brownlie, McCullum and Watling were the stand out players with the bat, and Boult and Martin with the ball.

The man of the match was Vernon Philander, and he really sewed it up in the first hour. He could have gone to sleep under the stands for the rest of the match, and he probably would have still deserved it. Steyn continued his love of playing against New Zealand, picking up his 50th wicket against the one opponent.

New Zealand are normally better in the second match of a series. They will need to be a lot better in Port Elizabeth to avoid humiliation again.

A tale of two bowlers

I was chatting to someone yesterday, and mentioned that I thought Shaminda Eranga was the real deal. That we might be looking back and say "I saw him at the start of his career." Not long after I said that he was smacked at more than 6 an over by the Australian openers. Fortunately I had put a caveat when I was chatting. I said "but he's still not very good against left handers. He looks amazing against right handers."

He seems to get a little swing, but then seam movement away from the right handers. The small bit of swing means that the batsmen start to follow the ball with their hands, and then he takes the edge with the seam movement. He doesn't swing it enough that they play and leave, but rather just enough to draw them into the shot. (Most balls seem to only swing about 5 cm - it's the movement off the seam that makes him dangerous). However against the left handers this small swing means that if it's straight, they tend to defend it, and if it seams back, they just hit an inside edge into their pads.

So I thought I'd go through his (brief) career so far and see if my feeling is correct. Here are Shaminda Eranga's test statistics against right and left handed batsmen (prior to the Melbourne test):

Hand	Average	Strike Rate	Economy Rate
Right	24.00	39.4	3.65
Left	101.50	195.0	3.12

There is a significant difference.

Of players who have bowled in at least 20 matches, the best strike rate ever is Sid Barnes, with 41.6. Next is Dale Steyn with 42.0 and the Waqar Younis with 43.4. Eranga to right handers has a better strike rate than any of these.

However the other end of the tail we see a bunch of part timers. With a strike rate in the region of 195 are the likes of Shivnarine Chanerpaul (193.3) and Geoff Howarth (204.6). Even Geoffrey Boycott had a bowling strike rate of 134.8. These are good people to be compared to if you are talking about defensive technique when batting, but not so much if you're talking about bowling.

If Eranga wants to make the most of his obvious talent, he will need to figure out how to bowl to lefties. He is a fantastic prospect for Sri Lanka, but they can't keep picking him if he's going to be two bowlers: Steyn to the right-handers but Boycott to the left handers.

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.

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.

Preview NZ SA 1st Test Dunedin 11/12

It feels like a long time since the last test match between Pakistan and England. There has been a lot of cricket between tests.

The South African tour of New Zealand got off to a positive start for the home nation, but 5 matches in a row to South Africa have changed the momentum somewhat.

Both teams are adding some big names, South Africa bring in Tahir, Philander and Smith. New Zealand bring in Taylor, Vettori and Martin.

Things to look for:

1. Chris Martin vs Smith & Kallis. Martin has a good record against both of South Africa's best batsmen, and the way that umpires are calling LBW's now really plays to his advantage. It will be interesting to see how he goes.

2. Is Ross Taylor fit? He had one warm up match, where he fielded for a day then watched the rain fall before being replaced. He has not faced a delivery in a real match for a couple of months.

3. Tahir vs NZ's bowlers. NZ has often relied on a lot of runs from the tail. Regularly they score more for the last 5 wickets than the first. However traditionally this had not happened when there has been a good spin bowler operating. Lyon ripped through them in Brisbane, and so Tahir should be eagerly awaiting a bowl.

4. Philander playing away from home. Philander has looked amazing in South Africa, and probably the best place for his type of bowling is New Zealand, but how well will he actually go in unfamiliar conditions?

ODI team of the year

Well, it wouldn't be the end of the year, without people naming a team of the year.

Here is my attempt at ODI team of the year:

Method:
For batsmen I broke down the players into openers, top order and lower/middle order players.
I then looked at all batsmen's results batting in these positions throughout the year, giving a bonus for world cup matches and for games against harder opposition. I created a points system that took in account their runs scored, their wickets lost and their deliveries faced. The higher the score the better.

Openers:

Sehwag & Watson

Name	Matches	Runs	Average	Strike rate	Points
V Sehwag	12	645	53.75	122.58	133.432
SR Watson	22	1124	59.15	92.35	108.154
SR Tendulkar	11	513	46.63	91.98	99.282
HM Amla	15	632	45.14	87.67	73.667
MJ Guptill	16	650	54.16	68.58	73.338

Somewhat unsurprising, given that they have both dominated this year. Tendulkar was a close 3rd.

Top Order

de Villiers, Clark & Taylor

Name	Matches	Runs	Average	Strike rate	Points
AB de Villiers	10	467	51.88	108.28	113.889
LRPL Taylor	17	561	51.00	87.09	86.13
MJ Clarke	24	900	56.25	91.01	81.247
Yuvraj Singh	11	381	42.33	89.78	80.421
IJL Trott	28	1246	51.91	80.84	77.224
V Kohli	31	1349	49.96	81.49	76.953
KC Sangakkara	26	1127	51.22	83.78	75.762
G Gambhir	15	562	40.14	85.09	74.575
JP Duminy	13	523	47.54	87.61	70.696

This was a little more interesting. I was quite surprised bu Clarke's numbers, as I hadn't remembered him having such a good season. By the same token Kohli had an amazing season, but missed out.

Lower/Middle order

Dhoni & Duminy

Name	Matches	Runs	Average	Strike rate	Points
MS Dhoni	23	759	63.25	81.69	100.227
JP Duminy	11	451	50.11	100.00	79.152
KJ O'Brien	12	324	29.45	125.31	77.566
Umar Akmal	28	785	41.31	86.95	62.378
Misbah-ul-Haq	20	545	45.41	73.80	61.635
DJ Hussey	16	342	38.00	152.94	61.583
KA Pollard	20	528	31.05	151.26	57.963
YK Pathan	12	271	27.10	121.15	53.221
MEK Hussey	14	347	38.55	93.24	51.55
EJG Morgan	15	384	29.53	85.71	51.297
F du Plessis	13	288	28.80	84.12	50.829

Initally I was going to have this and wicket-keeper as separate sections, but given that Dhoni came first as a batsman and there is not a lot of point in having two wicket keepers, it's better to take an extra batsman. JP Duminy just edges out Kevin O'Brien, but O'Brien is an obvious choice for 12th man, as he can contribute with the bat or the ball. And because I like his style of play.

Bowlers.

Quantifying the records for bowlers is not as easy as batsmen. I again created a measure that valued dot balls and wickets, and put a higher value on performances in the World Cup and in matches against good teams. The lower the points the better.

Name	Matches	Wickets	Average	Economy	Points
DW Steyn	14	25	18.50	4.41	19.78
RJ Peterson	9	18	21.15	4.74	20.51
M Morkel	14	26	17.73	4.41	21.26
Shahid Afridi	27	45	25.65	4.35	21.76
Wahab Riaz	13	23	20.77	5.32	22.51
TG Southee	13	25	22.85	5.00	22.56
JDP Oram	12	23	23.88	4.71	23.13
SL Malinga	24	48	23.13	4.89	23.46
B Lee	19	33	23.03	4.62	23.47
Z Khan	14	30	23.75	5.08	23.64
M Muralitharan	11	17	22.35	4.22	23.81
BAW Mendis	14	17	24.13	4.46	25.15
HK Bennett	10	17	26.61	5.73	26.09
Mohammad Hafeez	32	32	24.06	3.43	26.64

There are a couple of interesting names here. Mohammad Hafeez misses out due to not taking many wickets in the World Cup. Perhaps this is a weakness in my system, as he was really one of the outstanding bowlers of the year. Peterson likewise only played 2 games outside the world cup, and went at about 6 an over in those matches. But he had a fantastic World Cup and it is fair that a player gets a bonus for performing at the highest stage.

The final team:

Sehwag
Watson
de Villiers
Taylor
Clarke
Duminy
Dhoni
Shahid Afridi
Peterson
Morkel
Steyn

12th man O'Brien

How does your team look?