Sharp work

Here's a little video I noticed recently.  This was from yesterday, day one of the four day match between Auckland and Canterbury.

Auckland had just been bowled out for 165 and Canterbury were at 6/1 in the 7th over. George Worker is facing Matt Quinn. Jeet Raval is out of shot, but he is at short leg, under the helmet.

 

There are three impressive things here.

Firstly the awareness of Raval to try for the run out. It's easy to just appeal. Especially when a player isn't that far out of his crease. But instead Raval, who must have been only just out of shot, was aware of the possibility of the run out.

Secondly how quickly and accurately he got the ball in. The stumps are hit about 1 second after the batsman hits the ball. It means Raval has gathered the ball and then released it to throw down the stumps in about a third of a second. That's scarily fast.

Thirdly the outstanding umpiring. Worker was given out without a replay. When I went through the video frame by frame, the bat appears to be on the line as the ball dislodges the bails. One frame later and the bat is in the crease. That's either some poor benefit of the doubt, or some very good umpiring. I think it's kinder to assume the latter.

Below is the frame where the ball dislodges the bails. Do you think it's out?

Why I Love "The Boring Middle Overs"

Possibly not the most balanced field in an ODI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to almost double Bangladesh's success rate.

In One Day cricket there are a few cliches. Some are general like "catches win matches." Others are more specific, like "keep wickets in hand for the final overs" and "it's a cardinal sin to get bowled out before the end of 50 overs." (not referring to the Filipino version.) However there is one factor that is regularly overlooked, run outs.

In their last 193 matches that ended in a result, Bangladesh have taken 116 run outs. In the matches where they haven't taken a run out they have won just over a quarter, 25.9%. In the matches where they have taken at least one run out they have won just under half, 48.2%.

A similar (but not so dramatic) difference is true for most teams. Here are the winning percentages from the last 200 matches for each team (I've excluded Zimbabwe as they have not played sufficient matches against reasonable opposition recently):

Team	No run outs	With run outs	Improvement
Australia	66.3	69.4	4.6
Bangladesh	25.9	48.2	86.1
England	40.2	60.2	49.7
India	50.6	67	32.5
New Zealand	44.1	62.7	42
Pakistan	49	62.1	26.9
South Africa	65.9	63.8	-3.1
Sri Lanka	52.6	59	12.2
West Indies	35.4	47	32.7
Overall	47.4	60.1	26.8

It is fairly clear that run outs make a significant difference to a teams winning percentage. Only Bangladesh and West Indies have losing records if they manage a run out, and then it's only by a couple of matches.

The surprising exceptions here are South Africa and Australia. South Africa are the team most likely to run someone out, taking .78 run outs per match, but they actually do better when they don't manage to run anyone out than when they do. There are a couple of possible reasons for this. Run-outs are often a result of pressure, and so when a team is under pressure they are more likely to get run out. However, if a team has a reputation as being very good at fielding, then teams take less risks. Taking less risks results in less runs. It may be that the times that South Africa don't get run outs is when their opponents are not taking risks, and as a result they are scoring less anyway.

Breaking the numbers down further, it is interesting to see how they work in more detail.

Here are the winning percentages by number of run outs. This covers 1634 completed innings, but there were very few innings with 3 or 4 run outs, so the numbers are less reliable for those two categories (4 run outs have occurred only 6 times in this time period.)

Team	0 run outs	1 run out	2 run outs	3 run outs	4 run outs
Australia	66.3	67.2	77.3	60	-
Bangladesh	25.9	44.4	58.8	0	75
England	40.2	65.1	47.8	57.1	-
India	50.6	66.1	72.7	66.7	0
New Zealand	44.1	54.5	65.2	100	-
Pakistan	49	58.1	72.2	100	100
South Africa	65.9	61	66.7	72.7	-
Sri Lanka	52.6	56.1	61.9	80	-
West Indies	35.4	43.6	50	66.7	-
Overall	47.4	57.5	63.5	72.2	66.7

If we look at the overall rate, we can get an idea as to what a run out is worth. Every run out roughly adds 8% to the winning percentage.

However this does not adequately explain the data, as there is a big fluctuation between the better teams and the worse teams. A better option is to look at the losing percentage. It turns out that every run-out reduces the chance of losing by 19%. For example Pakistan lose 51% of their matches when they have no run outs. If they have 1 run out that is reduced by 19% to 41.3%, so we expect them to win 58.7%. If we look at the table above they actually win 58.1% which is remarkably close.

This is nice, but what does it actually mean in a game situation?

Simply it means that creating, and then taking, run out opportunities is a very effective way for a side to win games. It may be an idea for teams to actually think about how they are going to achieve run outs, rather than just hope that the batsmen make a mistake. An example of this is perhaps Martin Guptill running out Marlon Samuels in Wednesday's game at St Kitts. Guptill was sharp enough to be able to run out Samuels without Samuels even setting off for a run. It was amazing skill on the part of the fielder, but also awareness of the situation and good field placement by Williamson.

This sort of skill is as likely to turn a game as bowling a wicket maiden or hitting a quickfire cameo is, and as such it is something that captains and fielders need to think about, and plan for.

Match report 3rd ODI WI v NZ Warner Park, Bassterre, St Kitts

If you had not seen any other matches this series and arrived to watch this one, you would think that New Zealand were such a superior side that there was little chance of West Indies being able to take a game off them.

This was a dominant performance. New Zealand batted better, bowled better and fielded better.

It started with a great innings from Rob Nicol. Daniel Flynn looked like a world class batsman before chopping one on. However West Indies managed to pick up wickets at regular intervals throughout the innings, but most of them were from short balls that the New Zealand batsmen mistimed. Sammy, Narine and Sammy managed to create some pressure on the New Zealand batsmen. Sammy in particular looked outstanding.

He gave some clues as to how he thought the pitch was playing by moving Chris Gayle into a short straight mid on during the powerplay, banking on New Zealand struggling to time the ball. After the game Williamson noted that the pitch was slower than they had expected, but he felt that it was a good cricket wicket, that gave a chance for both batsmen and bowlers.

New Zealand's innings stalled after the 22nd over, and it took until the 33rd before they managed to get some momentum, but they rode the tempo change well and recovered from 141/5 off 34 to get to what looked like a modest total of 249/9. However sometimes it is difficult to know how good a score is until both teams have batted.

The first over from Kyle Mills went for two boundaries, but the big story was the next over. Trent Boult was given the ball ahead of Tim Southee, with the wind coming over his left shoulder. Normally this end would be given to the senior bowler in the team, but Williamson got the decision completely correct in this match. Southee generally bowls outswing, and while having the wind at his back would help his pace, Boult looked quicker in practice in Jamaica. Mills is the ideal bowler to bowl into that sort of wind. It assists his shape away from the right-hander and also helps the ball sit up a bit more.

Boult's first over got Gayle to defend 4 balls, avoid a quick bouncer and then edge one just between first slip (who was probably too wide) and the keeper. It was a promising start. More was to come in his next over as he picked up the dangerous Johnson Charles; lbw to a perfect inswinging yorker.

Gayle seemed to be struggling with the pace of Boult, so Williamson brought on Southee to give him some quick bowling at the body from both ends. The plan worked. Gayle edged Southee to Nicol, and all of a sudden 250 looked a long way away for the West Indies.

4 overs later it was 52/4 and the game was firmly in New Zealand's favour. 2 more overs and Guptill produced some brilliance to run out Samuels, and West Indies were staggering at 62/5. New Zealand immediately took the bowling powerplay. The 5 overs with the field up cost a total of 9 runs. New Zealand had rediscovered their fielding prowess.

Darren Sammy showed that it was a good pitch to be a tall medium pacer on. Jacob Oram is also a tall medium pacer and it was equally good for him, taking 2/22.

Some rearguard tail-end hitting from Andre Russell almost provided some respectability for the West Indies, but they still lost by 88 runs. Russell's 43* off 24 balls was the only score over 20.

The man of the match was a difficult decision for this match. Nicol top-scored with 59, Nathan McCullum lead the recovery with 50 as well as taking 2 wickets, 2 catches and being involved in a run out, and Andre Russell took 4 wickets to go with his runs. The award went to Nicol, but it was a game with at least 3 outstanding performances. (Southee and Boult both bowled sensationally, without getting the same reward)

West Indies have now lost 4 of the 5 matches they have played at this ground. They will need a significant improvement to improve that record in matches 4 or 5.

Pollard Magic

It is not often that Chris Gayle can bat through an innings and be totally overshadowed, but Kieron Pollard managed that today. His 63 can off just 29 balls. It was brutal, but calculating, controlled and clinical as well. He hit five 4's and five 6's, but he scored 13 off the remaining 19 balls with some deft touches and fantastic placement.

The New Zealand team were not helped in the slightest by some poor fielding. Both Gayle and Pollard were dropped at least once, and Charles was given two lives in one ball when Latham first dropped a catch then missed a stumping.

Gayle ended up man of the match, in what seems a strange decision to me. There is no doubt that 82 off 59 is a fantastic innings, but what Pollard gave us was something that nobody who was at this match will ever forget.

The ropes were in quite close, but even still, most of Pollard's big hits would have been 6 on the MCG. One shot in particular over extra cover was breathtaking. In dismantling the New Zealand bowling they also managed to dismantle any fears about the quality of the pitch.

The people that run the ground can be congratulated on a great pitch, and a very good outfield. The one negative from that perspective was that they either severely underestimated the number of people coming to the game, or they planned for that number very poorly. Due to an unfortunate mix-up with ticketing I wasn't able to get into the ground until the 11th over, despite arriving almost 2 hours early. While I was waiting I witnessed people queuing for over an hour, often in a disorganised rabble, despite the few security guards who were there trying to keep them in order. The staff who were there were trying hard to process people quickly, but there were not enough of them and there was inadequate signage. After waiting for 40 minutes people were being told that they were at the wrong gate. This was a particularly understandable mistake, as the gates were not marked. Also people had not been told that they were not allowed to bring in food and drink, so a lot of them were furious when told they had to leave their food and drink at the gate.

While the heat was not unbearable, it was hot, and for people to not to be able to bring in water seemed a little unreasonable, particularly when there were people selling water just outside the gate.

However once inside the ground the performance of first Pollard and Gayle, and then the West Indian fielders meant that most of the people stuck outside will have completely forgotten the difficulty they had getting in.

Captain Sammy

I believe that Darren Sammy could be the best captain in world cricket.

I don't believe, however that he is yet.

As far as I can see there are three things that are required to be a good captain. The first thing is someone who can bring out the best in his players. The bowlers will bowl better and the batsmen bat better with a good captain who is setting good batting/bowling plans. The second thing is good decisions as to when to change his bowlers and when to declare. A captain that does this well can create extra pressure for his opponents and really make a difference to the flow of the match. The third thing that a captain needs to do is set good fields. This is an incredibly difficult art as there are a number of things to think about.

I believe that this is the area that Sammy needs to work on.

Over the time that he has been captain, he has managed to get most of his bowlers bowling better and his batsmen batting better.

Of the 6 batsmen who played a significant number of innings both with and without Sammy as captain, 4 have averaged better under his captaincy. Most of them quite significantly better.

Of the 8 bowlers who bowled both with and without Sammy as captain 6 have a better average with Sammy than they had previously.

He is clearly good at getting the best out of his players.

I have also enjoyed his bowling changes and decisions regarding declarations etc. It's very difficult to measure the ability of a captain at this, but he seems to do this well, exemplified especially by the pressure he put on Australia in the recent series.

The field settings however are a different story.

There are a number of things that a captain needs to balance out. One of these is how many fielders are in attacking positions, how many are saving singles and how many are saving boundaries. Another is what parts of the field need special protection, and where a batsman is likely to give up an opportunity. There needs to be a combination of homework, observation, psychology, intuition and good luck in setting a good field.

One key part of setting a field is playing with the head of the batsman. Stephen Fleming was a master at this. He knew what a batsman's favoutite shot was, and put 4 fielders there. The bowlers then made it as easy as possible for the batsmen to hit the ball in their favourite spot, but the field made it too risky. Saleem Malik was another who had a real ability to make the batsmen hit the ball where he wanted them to. It was a bit part in the success that Pakistan had under his watch. (Especially impressive considering he wasn't always wanting to win every match)

It is hard to measure statistically the field setting skills of a captain, but one thing that can be measured is how their opponents score their runs. If a team is scoring their runs in boundaries, it's likely that the field is up close. If they are scoring them by running, then it is likely that the field is set back. It's not a fool-proof assumption, but I think it is a fair one to make.

So I looked at all matches that had a result in the last 10 years, and saw if there were any patterns. I noticed that there was a difference in how the captains that won and lost conceded the runs. I've averaged the runs out to runs per 90 overs (ie. runs per day)

result	Boundary runs	Run runs	Extra boundary runs (%)
lost	144	141	2.1
won	131	115	13.9

Teams that win the match tend to have their field up more than teams that lose. This is not particularly surprising, as teams that are losing tend to set defensive fields. However the difference is more than I would have expected.

Then I looked at teams playing against Sammy.

Boundary runs	Run runs	Extra boundary runs (%)
113	145	-22.1

Sammy actually conceded less runs from boundaries than from running. He is very intent on defending boundaries, but at the expense of letting in a lot of singles. Captains that win matches only concede on average 113 run runs, but Sammy concedes on average 145 run runs.

So it appears that Sammy is too defensive of the boundary, and leaves too many singles.

But the big issue is in the 4th innings. He has had a few opportunities in recent matches to bowl teams out, and each of them he has not managed to take the vital wickets. He has actually had 7 chances to bowl at a team in the 4th innings. Here are the numbers:

result	Boundary runs	Run runs	Extra boundary runs (%)
lost	132	116	13.8
won	156	147	6.1
Sammy	107	173	-38.2

The numbers tell the story. He is so scared to concede boundaries that the fields are set well too deep.

If he can rectify this balance Sammy could be a magnificent captain. He makes good changes, gets the most out of his players, but really needs to set better fields.