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.
Showing posts with label Doug Bracewell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Doug Bracewell. Show all posts
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Friday, 3 August 2012
Mini-session analysis 2nd Test, WI NZ, Sabina Park, 2012
Here is the final mini-session analysis for the second test between West Indies and New Zealand at Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica.
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.
Final update here. West Indies win the mini-session count 13-8
Stumps, Day 1: West Indies lead the mini-session count 4-2
New Zealand has imploded on day 1, after a solid start from Taylor and Guptill. A third successive 50 from Guptill was this time brought to an end by an injury causing him to get run out. Guptill managed 7 successive 50's. Again the New Zealand bowlers came out and attacked, and looked effective. Again that should be a worrying sign.
The positive sign for New Zealand was the bowling of Trent Boult. He is now probably the most dangerous bowler that New Zealand has. With 2 left-armers in the side, (for only the 4th test match in New Zealand's history) Taylor has the option of having a left/right combination constantly in this test. That's something that batsmen will not be used to facing, and could work to New Zealand's advantage. However, the pitch was not a major factor in many of today's dismissals, and it is unlikely to come to New Zealand's rescue tomorrow.
Innings break, post tea, Day 2: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 6-5
New Zealand's bowlers have stepped up today. This wasn't calypso collapso, it was quality bowling: 6 of the wickets fell to batsmen trying to defend, and 2 fell to batsmen trying to hit a single to relieve the pressure.
Boult led the way removing the first two. Then some disciplined bowling from the rest of the bowlers managed to generally pick away the West Indian wickets before Bracewell went rabbit hunting at the end.
New Zealand have often struggled to clean up the tail of teams, but Bracewell has now done it a number of times. With Boult removing the batsmen and Bracewell removing the bowlers this could be a very good combination.
Marlon Samuels stood magnificent amongst the rubble. He scored more than half of his team's runs, and, other than one half chance early on, looked like he was batting on a different pitch. In the end he perished when hitting out, but his century was, In Brian Waddle's words "as good as you are likely to see."
Final drinks, Day 2: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 7-5
Two contrasting approaches to this innings. Guptill has looked to get after the bowling more than he has in the rest of this series: 24 of 32 and showing some real intent. Wattling however has been content to wait. He batted fantastically at Sabina Park in the second ODI (his 50 in the first match was quite scratchy), and he will be hoping to recapture that form in this innings.
New Zealand now lead by 81. In the history of Sabina Park, there have only been 2 times that a team has successfully chased more than 100, and no team has ever chased down 250 here. If these two are together at stumps, New Zealand will be in a commanding position.
Stumps, Day 2: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 7-6
Two quick wickets from Narsingh Deonarine has taken the game back towards being even. Guptill again failed to convert a start. It was clever captaincy from Sammy, as both batsmen tried to turn the ball round the corner for singles into a gap that he'd left for them. Both of them missed, and so were out. New Zealand will be looking for a score of at least 250, but they will probably need someone to do what Samuels has done and convert a start to at least 100.
Final drinks, Day 3: West Indies lead the mini-session count 11-7.
Since I started keeping track of the mini-sessions, the closest any team has come to winning a game, but losing the mini-session count was Sri Lanka vs South Africa, where the mini-session count was tied, but Sri Lanka won convincingly. New Zealand will need to be the first to over turn the mini-session count if they are to win this match.
The set up is similar to Hobart. One batsman is playing well, the rest are looking shaky. There is a feeling that BJ Wattling may have dropped the match when he put down Samuels, who is looking imperious.
Earlier New Zealand managed to implode in dramatic fashion. 5 wickets went to batsmen trying to hit boundaries and 2 to batsmen trying to hit singles. Only Wagner, McCullum and Bracewell got out after being beaten by genuinely good deliveries. Ross Taylor probably needs to re-assess his decision to play the cut shot early in his innings. He's gotten out to it a few times now, he should probably either try and place it for 1, or just leave those deliveries alone until he has his eye in a bit better.
Stumps, Day 3: West Indies lead the mini-session count 11-8
West Indies need Chanderpaul to stay there and one batsman to stick with him. New Zealand need at least 1 good spell of bowling. The bookies currently have NZ at $7 for the win. I feel if the two teams were to play from this position 20 times that New Zealand would win 4 or 5, so $7 looks like a good price to me.
There is one joker in the pack: Ernesto. Hurricane Ernesto is likely to hit Jamaica about midday tomorrow. The NOAA have it 70% likely to have hit by 1pm local time. It is unlikely that play will be possible after it hits (although if it turns slightly to the left it may only last for an hour or so). If play progresses too slowly tomorrow, and neither side has won by lunch, then the game may be a draw.
End of match: West Indies beat New Zealand and the rain by 5 wickets. They win the mini-session count 13-8.
New Zealand were unable to make the vital break-throughs, and West Indies walked home in less than 2 hours on the morning of day 4. A terrible tour for New Zealand, who were comprehensively out played by a West Indies team that produced some of the best cricket they have played for about 7 years. Every time it looked like New Zealand were going to get back into a match or series, a player would step up and take the game away.
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 35/2 off 12 | West Indies |
| 1-1b | New Zealand 39/0 off 15 | New Zealand |
| 1-2a | New Zealand 45/1 off 13 | New Zealand |
| 1-2b | New Zealand 33/2 off 12 | West Indies |
| 1-3a | New Zealand 22/1 off 13 | West Indies |
| 1-3b | New Zealand 86/4 off 17.5 | West Indies |
| West Indies 11/0 off 5 | ||
| 2-1a | West Indies 32/2 off 13 | New Zealand |
| 2-1b | West Indies 19/1 off 12 | New Zealand |
| 2-2a | West Indies 43/2 off 13.1 | New Zealand |
| 2-2b | West Indies 58/2 off 11.5 | West Indies |
| 2-3a | West Indies 46/3 off 9.3 | New Zealand |
| 2-3b | New Zealand 30/0 off 11 | New Zealand |
| 2-3c | New Zealand 29/2 off 10 | West Indies |
| 3-1a | New Zealand 25/2 off 15 | West Indies |
| 3-1b | New Zealand 25/3 off 15 | West Indies |
| 3-2a | New Zealand 45/3 off 14.2 | West Indies |
| 3-2b | West Indies 56/2 off 12 | West Indies |
| 3-3a | West Indies 26/0 off 12 | West Indies |
| 3-3b | West Indies 53/2 off 19 | New Zealand |
| 4-1a | West Indies 56/1 off 14 | West Indies |
| 4-1b | West Indies 15/0 off 6.2 | West Indies |
Final update here. West Indies win the mini-session count 13-8
Stumps, Day 1: West Indies lead the mini-session count 4-2
New Zealand has imploded on day 1, after a solid start from Taylor and Guptill. A third successive 50 from Guptill was this time brought to an end by an injury causing him to get run out. Guptill managed 7 successive 50's. Again the New Zealand bowlers came out and attacked, and looked effective. Again that should be a worrying sign.
The positive sign for New Zealand was the bowling of Trent Boult. He is now probably the most dangerous bowler that New Zealand has. With 2 left-armers in the side, (for only the 4th test match in New Zealand's history) Taylor has the option of having a left/right combination constantly in this test. That's something that batsmen will not be used to facing, and could work to New Zealand's advantage. However, the pitch was not a major factor in many of today's dismissals, and it is unlikely to come to New Zealand's rescue tomorrow.
Innings break, post tea, Day 2: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 6-5
New Zealand's bowlers have stepped up today. This wasn't calypso collapso, it was quality bowling: 6 of the wickets fell to batsmen trying to defend, and 2 fell to batsmen trying to hit a single to relieve the pressure.
Boult led the way removing the first two. Then some disciplined bowling from the rest of the bowlers managed to generally pick away the West Indian wickets before Bracewell went rabbit hunting at the end.
New Zealand have often struggled to clean up the tail of teams, but Bracewell has now done it a number of times. With Boult removing the batsmen and Bracewell removing the bowlers this could be a very good combination.
Marlon Samuels stood magnificent amongst the rubble. He scored more than half of his team's runs, and, other than one half chance early on, looked like he was batting on a different pitch. In the end he perished when hitting out, but his century was, In Brian Waddle's words "as good as you are likely to see."
Final drinks, Day 2: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 7-5
Two contrasting approaches to this innings. Guptill has looked to get after the bowling more than he has in the rest of this series: 24 of 32 and showing some real intent. Wattling however has been content to wait. He batted fantastically at Sabina Park in the second ODI (his 50 in the first match was quite scratchy), and he will be hoping to recapture that form in this innings.
New Zealand now lead by 81. In the history of Sabina Park, there have only been 2 times that a team has successfully chased more than 100, and no team has ever chased down 250 here. If these two are together at stumps, New Zealand will be in a commanding position.
Stumps, Day 2: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 7-6
Two quick wickets from Narsingh Deonarine has taken the game back towards being even. Guptill again failed to convert a start. It was clever captaincy from Sammy, as both batsmen tried to turn the ball round the corner for singles into a gap that he'd left for them. Both of them missed, and so were out. New Zealand will be looking for a score of at least 250, but they will probably need someone to do what Samuels has done and convert a start to at least 100.
Final drinks, Day 3: West Indies lead the mini-session count 11-7.
Since I started keeping track of the mini-sessions, the closest any team has come to winning a game, but losing the mini-session count was Sri Lanka vs South Africa, where the mini-session count was tied, but Sri Lanka won convincingly. New Zealand will need to be the first to over turn the mini-session count if they are to win this match.
The set up is similar to Hobart. One batsman is playing well, the rest are looking shaky. There is a feeling that BJ Wattling may have dropped the match when he put down Samuels, who is looking imperious.
Earlier New Zealand managed to implode in dramatic fashion. 5 wickets went to batsmen trying to hit boundaries and 2 to batsmen trying to hit singles. Only Wagner, McCullum and Bracewell got out after being beaten by genuinely good deliveries. Ross Taylor probably needs to re-assess his decision to play the cut shot early in his innings. He's gotten out to it a few times now, he should probably either try and place it for 1, or just leave those deliveries alone until he has his eye in a bit better.
Stumps, Day 3: West Indies lead the mini-session count 11-8
West Indies need Chanderpaul to stay there and one batsman to stick with him. New Zealand need at least 1 good spell of bowling. The bookies currently have NZ at $7 for the win. I feel if the two teams were to play from this position 20 times that New Zealand would win 4 or 5, so $7 looks like a good price to me.
There is one joker in the pack: Ernesto. Hurricane Ernesto is likely to hit Jamaica about midday tomorrow. The NOAA have it 70% likely to have hit by 1pm local time. It is unlikely that play will be possible after it hits (although if it turns slightly to the left it may only last for an hour or so). If play progresses too slowly tomorrow, and neither side has won by lunch, then the game may be a draw.
End of match: West Indies beat New Zealand and the rain by 5 wickets. They win the mini-session count 13-8.
New Zealand were unable to make the vital break-throughs, and West Indies walked home in less than 2 hours on the morning of day 4. A terrible tour for New Zealand, who were comprehensively out played by a West Indies team that produced some of the best cricket they have played for about 7 years. Every time it looked like New Zealand were going to get back into a match or series, a player would step up and take the game away.
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Bracewell's no ball problem?
In 9 innings Doug Bracewell has 3 times taken a wicket off a no ball.
In his first test he had Regis Chakabva out off a no ball. It was picked up on the TV replay.
In his second test he bowled Michael Clarke, but then Asad Rauf checked upstairs and Clarke was recalled.
Yesterday he had Jaques Rudolph out plumb lbw, but the delivery turned out to be a no ball.
Given this it would be fair to expect that he was bowling no balls left, right and centre. So it's a bit of a surprise to see that he has only bowled 13 no balls in 131 overs. That's roughly one no ball every 60 deliveries. It's just that three of his no balls have been particularly costly.
It leaves three interesting possibilities.
1. When he bowls a no ball, the difference in where the ball comes from makes more of a difference to the batsman than seems likely. It's hard to see this being the case, but 3 wickets in 13 balls is fairly compelling.
2. He bowls more no balls than this, but because other deliveries are not checked they are not picked up. If the third umpire was checking all deliveries then perhaps he would bowl a lot more.
3. The way he runs might make it difficult for umpires to pick up his foot position. This might be the reason that none of these 3 balls were picked up by the umpires, and it required the 3rd umpire each time.
In his first test he had Regis Chakabva out off a no ball. It was picked up on the TV replay.
In his second test he bowled Michael Clarke, but then Asad Rauf checked upstairs and Clarke was recalled.
Yesterday he had Jaques Rudolph out plumb lbw, but the delivery turned out to be a no ball.
Given this it would be fair to expect that he was bowling no balls left, right and centre. So it's a bit of a surprise to see that he has only bowled 13 no balls in 131 overs. That's roughly one no ball every 60 deliveries. It's just that three of his no balls have been particularly costly.
It leaves three interesting possibilities.
1. When he bowls a no ball, the difference in where the ball comes from makes more of a difference to the batsman than seems likely. It's hard to see this being the case, but 3 wickets in 13 balls is fairly compelling.
2. He bowls more no balls than this, but because other deliveries are not checked they are not picked up. If the third umpire was checking all deliveries then perhaps he would bowl a lot more.
3. The way he runs might make it difficult for umpires to pick up his foot position. This might be the reason that none of these 3 balls were picked up by the umpires, and it required the 3rd umpire each time.
Friday, 30 December 2011
Test team of the year
I put together an ODI team of the year, and I'm going to use a similar method for test team of the year.
The first thing that needs to be decided on is the balance of the team. Often the successful teams play with 4 bowlers and one batsman who can contribute with the ball. (There has only been one game this year where a team has won with only using 4 bowlers)
This time rather than using matches at the World cup as a premium, I'm looking at away matches as the premium. This year we have seen some very good performances by home teams, and only a few by away teams, so there needs to be a bonus for teams performing away from home. (For the purpose of this I don't consider games in UAE as away games for either team)
Openers, Alastair Cook & Tino Mawayo
This was selected from batsmen who had played at least 6 innings as openers.
The selection was fairly straight-forward
In reality Tino Mawoyo's first class record suggest it is unlikely that he will turn out to be a world class opener, but he has produced world class numbers this year (including carrying his bat for a particularly memorable 453 ball epic 163* against Pakistan). And Zimbabwe has produced some outstanding batsmen in their short test history.
Number 3 Rahul Dravid
This was not so straight forward, as the runs below were not just scored at number 3. Dravid did better when he opened the batting, and Amla did worse the one innings that he didn't bat at number 3. Sangakkara scored the most runs, but didn't manage any not out's so his average suffered accordingly.
Numbers 4 & 5 Younis Khan & Ian Bell
Ian Bell has batted at 6 for this year, but he has been a specialist batsman, rather than an all-rounder.
All rounder Mike Hussey
This was a surprise. I was expecting Shakib, Watson, Vettori or Kallis to come out on top here. Hussey was hardly a front-line bowler, but we are only looking for someone who can contribute, and of the players that do that he has been the most effective this year. Kallis has not exactly had a vintage year with the ball, bowling 61 overs for 232 runs. Watson however has been outstanding with the ball, but surprisingly poor with the bat, especially since I thought I remembered him batting really well.
Wicketkeeper Matt Prior
This was the easiest decision of all.
Matt Prior is so far above the rest of the keepers in terms of batting that he really selects himself. His numbers don't indicate that he is the best keeper, but given that he concedes about 5 byes per innings, but his adjusted average is about 25 runs more than the next best with the bat, he can't be overlooked.
Here is the batting stats for everyone who averaged 35 or higher:
And their byes stats:
The intangible is dropped catches. It is more work than I'm prepared to do to go back and count the number of catches dropped. If Adnan or Taibu had not dropped any catches, and Prior dropped 1 per game, then there would be a difficult decision, but given that we don't have any data we have to proceed on the understanding that there is no significant difference between them.
Bowlers James Pattinson, Shane Watson, Doug Bracewell and Saeed Ajmal
Here I decided that a bowler had to have bowled 90 overs. I got this number as it was roughly the lower quartile of bowlers who had bowled in 5 innings. This was better than just using 5 innings, as measuring in overs allows more consistency (someone who bowls 2 overs in each of 5 innings just giving a rest to the other bowlers and picks up 3 wickets for 55 runs because the batsmen are slogging him would end up with a very good average despite not being a front-line bowler - for a less extreme version of this see Mike Hussey) Unfortunately Vernon Philander just missed out on this.
I also needed to have at least 2 quick bowlers and at least 1 spinner. The final position comes down to performance (although in reality it would probably come down to the conditions). As a result I have picked Saeed Ajmal, as the best spinner.
Most of the players selected have not played much cricket, and just scrape in on overs bowled. If we extended that to 150 overs required the line up would be Dale Steyn, Praveen Kumar, Saeed Ajmal and Mohammad Hafeez.
The team (in batting order)
Alastair Cook
Tino Mawoyo
Rahul Dravid
Younis Khan
Michael Hussey
Ian Bell
Matt Prior
Shane Watson
Doug Bracewell
James Pattinson
Saeed Ajmal
12th man Mohammad Hafeez
Surprisingly there are no South Africans or Sri Lankans in the team. There are also no West Indians or Bangladeshis either.
That's my stats based team. What is your team?
The first thing that needs to be decided on is the balance of the team. Often the successful teams play with 4 bowlers and one batsman who can contribute with the ball. (There has only been one game this year where a team has won with only using 4 bowlers)
This time rather than using matches at the World cup as a premium, I'm looking at away matches as the premium. This year we have seen some very good performances by home teams, and only a few by away teams, so there needs to be a bonus for teams performing away from home. (For the purpose of this I don't consider games in UAE as away games for either team)
Openers, Alastair Cook & Tino Mawayo
This was selected from batsmen who had played at least 6 innings as openers.
The selection was fairly straight-forward
| Player | Matches | Runs | Actual Average | Points |
| AN Cook (Eng) | 8 | 927 | 84.27 | 84.31 |
| TMK Mawoyo (Zim) | 3 | 310 | 62.00 | 59.17 |
| Taufeeq Umar (Pak) | 10 | 831 | 46.16 | 46.55 |
| DA Warner (Aus) | 3 | 195 | 48.75 | 43.84 |
| Mohammad Hafeez (Pak) | 10 | 647 | 40.43 | 36.41 |
| V Sibanda (Zim) | 3 | 272 | 45.33 | 36.40 |
| GC Smith (SA) | 5 | 322 | 40.25 | 36.20 |
In reality Tino Mawoyo's first class record suggest it is unlikely that he will turn out to be a world class opener, but he has produced world class numbers this year (including carrying his bat for a particularly memorable 453 ball epic 163* against Pakistan). And Zimbabwe has produced some outstanding batsmen in their short test history.
Number 3 Rahul Dravid
This was not so straight forward, as the runs below were not just scored at number 3. Dravid did better when he opened the batting, and Amla did worse the one innings that he didn't bat at number 3. Sangakkara scored the most runs, but didn't manage any not out's so his average suffered accordingly.
| Player | Matches | Runs | Actual Average | Points |
| R Dravid (India) | 12 | 1145 | 57.25 | 59.05 |
| KA Edwards (WI) | 6 | 595 | 54.09 | 53.12 |
| SE Marsh (Aus) | 4 | 287 | 41.00 | 48.67 |
| Azhar Ali (Pak) | 10 | 732 | 45.75 | 45.14 |
| KC Sangakkara (SL) | 11 | 1034 | 49.23 | 43.93 |
| HM Amla (SA) | 5 | 423 | 47.00 | 42.27 |
| IJL Trott (Eng) | 6 | 365 | 40.55 | 36.47 |
Numbers 4 & 5 Younis Khan & Ian Bell
Ian Bell has batted at 6 for this year, but he has been a specialist batsman, rather than an all-rounder.
| Player | Matches | Runs | Actual Average | Points |
| IR Bell (Eng) | 8 | 950 | 118.75 | 110.24 |
| Younis Khan (Pak) | 8 | 765 | 85.00 | 83.93 |
| Misbah-ul-Haq (Pak) | 10 | 765 | 69.54 | 75.15 |
| KP Pietersen (Eng) | 8 | 731 | 73.10 | 65.07 |
| DG Brownlie (NZ) | 3 | 268 | 53.60 | 60.76 |
| S Chanderpaul (WI) | 8 | 646 | 53.83 | 54.21 |
| DM Bravo (WI) | 10 | 949 | 49.94 | 53.91 |
| BRM Taylor (Zim) | 3 | 358 | 71.60 | 50.44 |
| SR Tendulkar (India) | 9 | 756 | 47.25 | 49.62 |
| MEK Hussey (Aus) | 9 | 680 | 42.50 | 48.18 |
| TT Samaraweera (SL) | 7 | 501 | 41.75 | 46.82 |
| Shakib Al Hasan (Ban) | 5 | 451 | 50.11 | 46.54 |
| JH Kallis (SA) | 5 | 359 | 51.28 | 46.12 |
All rounder Mike Hussey
This was a surprise. I was expecting Shakib, Watson, Vettori or Kallis to come out on top here. Hussey was hardly a front-line bowler, but we are only looking for someone who can contribute, and of the players that do that he has been the most effective this year. Kallis has not exactly had a vintage year with the ball, bowling 61 overs for 232 runs. Watson however has been outstanding with the ball, but surprisingly poor with the bat, especially since I thought I remembered him batting really well.
| Player | Batting | Bowling | Difference |
| MEK Hussey (Aus) | 48.18 | 17.97 | 30.21 |
| Shakib Al Hasan (Ban) | 46.54 | 30.66 | 15.88 |
| Mohammad Hafeez (Pak) | 36.41 | 22.66 | 13.75 |
| DL Vettori (NZ) | 40.23 | 27.68 | 12.55 |
| AD Mathews (SL) | 40.52 | 30.58 | 9.94 |
| R Ashwin (India) | 34.59 | 27.25 | 7.34 |
| SR Watson (Aus) | 23.82 | 17.14 | 6.68 |
| Azhar Ali (Pak) | 45.14 | 38.92 | 6.22 |
| DJG Sammy (WI) | 18.19 | 30.13 | -11.94 |
| TM Dilshan (SL) | 35.21 | 53.45 | -18.24 |
| MN Samuels (WI) | 32.51 | 54.06 | -21.55 |
| IJL Trott (Eng) | 36.47 | 110.09 | -73.62 |
| JH Kallis (SA) | 46.12 | 257.98 | -211.86 |
Wicketkeeper Matt Prior
This was the easiest decision of all.
Matt Prior is so far above the rest of the keepers in terms of batting that he really selects himself. His numbers don't indicate that he is the best keeper, but given that he concedes about 5 byes per innings, but his adjusted average is about 25 runs more than the next best with the bat, he can't be overlooked.
Here is the batting stats for everyone who averaged 35 or higher:
| Player | Matches | Runs | Actual Average | Points |
| MJ Prior (Eng) | 8 | 519 | 64.87 | 64.90 |
| T Taibu (Zim) | 3 | 267 | 44.50 | 39.17 |
| Adnan Akmal (Pak) | 8 | 211 | 35.16 | 36.54 |
| Mushfiqur Rahim (Ban) | 5 | 340 | 37.77 | 35.07 |
And their byes stats:
| Name | Byes | Deliveries | Byes/100 overs |
| Adnan Akmal (Pak) | 26 | 8559 | 1.82 |
| T Taibu (Zim) | 15 | 2581 | 3.49 |
| Mushfiqur Rahim (Ban) | 34 | 4741 | 4.30 |
| MJ Prior (Eng) | 65 | 8096 | 4.82 |
The intangible is dropped catches. It is more work than I'm prepared to do to go back and count the number of catches dropped. If Adnan or Taibu had not dropped any catches, and Prior dropped 1 per game, then there would be a difficult decision, but given that we don't have any data we have to proceed on the understanding that there is no significant difference between them.
Bowlers James Pattinson, Shane Watson, Doug Bracewell and Saeed Ajmal
Here I decided that a bowler had to have bowled 90 overs. I got this number as it was roughly the lower quartile of bowlers who had bowled in 5 innings. This was better than just using 5 innings, as measuring in overs allows more consistency (someone who bowls 2 overs in each of 5 innings just giving a rest to the other bowlers and picks up 3 wickets for 55 runs because the batsmen are slogging him would end up with a very good average despite not being a front-line bowler - for a less extreme version of this see Mike Hussey) Unfortunately Vernon Philander just missed out on this.
I also needed to have at least 2 quick bowlers and at least 1 spinner. The final position comes down to performance (although in reality it would probably come down to the conditions). As a result I have picked Saeed Ajmal, as the best spinner.
| Name | Matches | Overs | Wickets | Actual Average | Weighted Average |
| JL Pattinson (Aus) | 3 | 98.5 | 20 | 15.20 | 16.90 |
| SR Watson (Aus) | 6 | 113.5 | 14 | 19.07 | 17.14 |
| DAJ Bracewell (NZ) | 3 | 101 | 16 | 19.25 | 17.39 |
| TT Bresnan (Eng) | 4 | 139.3 | 21 | 19.09 | 20.95 |
| Z Khan (India) | 3 | 114.2 | 13 | 23.15 | 21.46 |
| DW Steyn (SA) | 5 | 178.4 | 28 | 19.57 | 21.76 |
| Saeed Ajmal (Pak) | 8 | 487 | 50 | 23.86 | 21.97 |
| Mohammad Hafeez (Pak) | 10 | 167 | 15 | 25.93 | 22.66 |
| Aizaz Cheema (Pak) | 4 | 146.4 | 19 | 24.78 | 23.38 |
| U Yadav (India) | 3 | 96.3 | 16 | 22.93 | 23.42 |
| P Kumar (India) | 6 | 268.3 | 27 | 25.81 | 23.92 |
| Abdur Rehman (Pak) | 8 | 412 | 36 | 26.27 | 24.39 |
| SCJ Broad (Eng) | 7 | 270.2 | 33 | 22.30 | 24.80 |
| PP Ojha (India) | 3 | 177.2 | 20 | 22.50 | 25.02 |
| Umar Gul (Pak) | 8 | 287.5 | 34 | 25.67 | 25.09 |
| JM Anderson (Eng) | 7 | 296.2 | 35 | 24.85 | 25.57 |
| R Rampaul (WI) | 8 | 283.1 | 31 | 25.03 | 26.20 |
| R Ashwin (India) | 4 | 221 | 26 | 24.80 | 27.25 |
| DL Vettori (NZ) | 4 | 228.1 | 16 | 27.12 | 27.68 |
| CS Martin (NZ) | 5 | 192 | 20 | 29.45 | 27.94 |
| NM Lyon (Aus) | 8 | 198.4 | 23 | 27.47 | 28.64 |
| CT Tremlett (Eng) | 5 | 207.4 | 23 | 27.17 | 29.71 |
| HMRKB Herath (SL) | 10 | 470.1 | 41 | 29.07 | 29.92 |
Most of the players selected have not played much cricket, and just scrape in on overs bowled. If we extended that to 150 overs required the line up would be Dale Steyn, Praveen Kumar, Saeed Ajmal and Mohammad Hafeez.
The team (in batting order)
Alastair Cook
Tino Mawoyo
Rahul Dravid
Younis Khan
Michael Hussey
Ian Bell
Matt Prior
Shane Watson
Doug Bracewell
James Pattinson
Saeed Ajmal
12th man Mohammad Hafeez
Surprisingly there are no South Africans or Sri Lankans in the team. There are also no West Indians or Bangladeshis either.
That's my stats based team. What is your team?
Monday, 12 December 2011
Man of the match?
There is quite a kerfuffle here in the land of the long white cloud about the man of the match award from the Bellerive test going to David Warner rather than Doug Bracewell. It is as if we are so used to complaining after a cricket match (because we are fairly used to losing the match) that we just have to complain about something.
But this blog is for the purpose of (semi-)objectively answering those questions, so we can look at the merits of the two performances.
First of all their context-less place in test match history:
Warner scored 123* in the second innings. This is 1759th equal best score out of 57407 innings(at least 1 minute batted). This puts it in the 96.9th percentile.
Bracewell took 6/40 in the second innings. These are the 438th best bowling figures out of 38907 bowling innings (at least one over bowled in an innings) This is in the 98.9th percentile.
At the moment Bracewell has the edge.
But it is not the man of the innings - it is man of the match. So lets look at match totals:
Warner's total runs were 138, with one dismissal, putting him 2198th equal out of 35258 match totals (at least 1 minute batted). This puts him in the 93.8th percentile.
Bracewell took 9/60, which is the 386th equal best figures out of 23952. This is in the 98.4th percentile of all bowling performances.
Again this favours Bracewell. - But this is unsurprising. It was a bowlers wicket, and you would expect bowling figures to look better than batting figures.
What about the contribution to the team?
Warner scored 138 runs out of 383. 36% of the team runs.
Bracewell took 9 wickets out of 20. 45% of the team wickets.
Overall there were 745 runs scored for the loss of 40 wickets. Each wicket was therefore worth 18.625. By scoring 138 in his two innings, Warner was effectively 3.7 times better than the average batsman. Bracewell took his wickets at 6.67 runs per wicket making him 2.8 times better than average, but he also scored 16 runs in his two innings, which is an 0.43, giving him a total of 3.23 times better than average.
This is one analysis that Warner comes out ahead on.
But if we say that each wicket was worth 18.625, and Bracewell took 9 of them, then his wickets were worth 167 runs. Which is more than the 138 that Warner scored.
I have only 2 metrics left.
Warner scored 138. The next highest scorer was Brownlie who got 77, and was out twice, so averaged 38.5 Warner was 3.6 times better than the next best batsman on that pitch.
Bracewell took 9/60. The next best was Pattinson who took 8/105. Brownlie averaged 6.67, Pattinson averaged 13.13. Bracewell was 1.97 times better than the second best bowler on the pitch.
So Bracewell is ahead on 3, and Warner leads on 2.
The final measure is how they well they did their job. This is not something that can be measured with anything other than a 1 or a 0.
Innings 1. Bracewell's job was to support Brownlie. He lasted for 14.1 overs, and was part of the largest partnership in the NZ innings. He did his job. 1. Warner was not called on to bowl, and did not have any catches that I can remember go his way. No score.
Innings 2. Warners job was to see off the new ball, and then score some runs. He was out before drinks, while the ball was still only 8.4 overs old. He only scored 15 runs. 0. Bracewell's job was to take wickets, and do it cheaply. He took 3/20 off 10 overs. 1.
Innings 3. Warner again played no part. Bracewell's job was to first support Young, and then to score some runs. He didn't really manage to score enough (only got 4). 0
Innings 4. Warner needed to bat through the innings, and score enough guns to carry Australia home. Shielding the tail, and scoring sensibly. He failed to shield the tail, and as a result didn't have the chance to take his team home. 0. Bracewell's job was to take wickets. He got 6 of them, including Ponting, Clarke, and Hussey. He also cleaned up the tail. 1
Totals: Warner 0/2 = 0 Bracewell 3/4 = 0.75
Warner had a good game. He was Australia's best player, but he didn't do what was required for his team to win the game. There is an argument for him to be the man of the match, but it was quite clear, from my (only slightly biased) position that the true man of the match was one Doug Bracewell.
But this blog is for the purpose of (semi-)objectively answering those questions, so we can look at the merits of the two performances.
First of all their context-less place in test match history:
Warner scored 123* in the second innings. This is 1759th equal best score out of 57407 innings(at least 1 minute batted). This puts it in the 96.9th percentile.
Bracewell took 6/40 in the second innings. These are the 438th best bowling figures out of 38907 bowling innings (at least one over bowled in an innings) This is in the 98.9th percentile.
At the moment Bracewell has the edge.
But it is not the man of the innings - it is man of the match. So lets look at match totals:
Warner's total runs were 138, with one dismissal, putting him 2198th equal out of 35258 match totals (at least 1 minute batted). This puts him in the 93.8th percentile.
Bracewell took 9/60, which is the 386th equal best figures out of 23952. This is in the 98.4th percentile of all bowling performances.
Again this favours Bracewell. - But this is unsurprising. It was a bowlers wicket, and you would expect bowling figures to look better than batting figures.
What about the contribution to the team?
Warner scored 138 runs out of 383. 36% of the team runs.
Bracewell took 9 wickets out of 20. 45% of the team wickets.
Overall there were 745 runs scored for the loss of 40 wickets. Each wicket was therefore worth 18.625. By scoring 138 in his two innings, Warner was effectively 3.7 times better than the average batsman. Bracewell took his wickets at 6.67 runs per wicket making him 2.8 times better than average, but he also scored 16 runs in his two innings, which is an 0.43, giving him a total of 3.23 times better than average.
This is one analysis that Warner comes out ahead on.
But if we say that each wicket was worth 18.625, and Bracewell took 9 of them, then his wickets were worth 167 runs. Which is more than the 138 that Warner scored.
I have only 2 metrics left.
Warner scored 138. The next highest scorer was Brownlie who got 77, and was out twice, so averaged 38.5 Warner was 3.6 times better than the next best batsman on that pitch.
Bracewell took 9/60. The next best was Pattinson who took 8/105. Brownlie averaged 6.67, Pattinson averaged 13.13. Bracewell was 1.97 times better than the second best bowler on the pitch.
So Bracewell is ahead on 3, and Warner leads on 2.
The final measure is how they well they did their job. This is not something that can be measured with anything other than a 1 or a 0.
Innings 1. Bracewell's job was to support Brownlie. He lasted for 14.1 overs, and was part of the largest partnership in the NZ innings. He did his job. 1. Warner was not called on to bowl, and did not have any catches that I can remember go his way. No score.
Innings 2. Warners job was to see off the new ball, and then score some runs. He was out before drinks, while the ball was still only 8.4 overs old. He only scored 15 runs. 0. Bracewell's job was to take wickets, and do it cheaply. He took 3/20 off 10 overs. 1.
Innings 3. Warner again played no part. Bracewell's job was to first support Young, and then to score some runs. He didn't really manage to score enough (only got 4). 0
Innings 4. Warner needed to bat through the innings, and score enough guns to carry Australia home. Shielding the tail, and scoring sensibly. He failed to shield the tail, and as a result didn't have the chance to take his team home. 0. Bracewell's job was to take wickets. He got 6 of them, including Ponting, Clarke, and Hussey. He also cleaned up the tail. 1
Totals: Warner 0/2 = 0 Bracewell 3/4 = 0.75
Warner had a good game. He was Australia's best player, but he didn't do what was required for his team to win the game. There is an argument for him to be the man of the match, but it was quite clear, from my (only slightly biased) position that the true man of the match was one Doug Bracewell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)