The Auckland Aces seem to have taken many people by surprise by being so competitive this far into the Champions League T20.
I predicted that they would make the semi-finals at the start of the tournament. Here's why:
1. Completeness.
The Aces have not lost any players to any other teams or injury. Every player was available for them. This is something that most teams can not say.
2. Composure.
The Aces have 12 players in their squad with international experience. This makes a big difference as they are more used to playing in different conditions, and in front of bigger crowds.
3. Conditions.
South Africa at this time of the year is similar to New Zealand in late November. The pitches are a bit unpredictable, the weather is changeable and the outfields are a similar pace. Not many other teams are comfortable in these conditions.
4. Competition.
The HRV Cup has only 6 teams in it. This means that the player pool is not diluted much. Most teams in the New Zealand competition have at least 6 international players in them, if not more. There are no easy games, and not many players that you can target. The proof of this is that most NZ players have significantly better averages when playing domestic cricket overseas than when playing at home (batting and bowling).
5. Collecting.
The Aces have a raft of players who are outstanding at fielding and running between the wickets. This is often the difference between teams in close matches. With Kitchen, Hira, Guptill and Vincent they have 4 of the best fielders in world cricket. There are less easy runs against Auckland, and they are so quick between the wickets that they find runs that many other teams can't score, by hitting the ball straight to a fielder and running.
6. Closeness.
For the last couple of years the Aces played a short walk from a good friend's place, and so I saw a lot of them play. This naturally results in me having a certain bias towards them. But at least I can admit it.
Showing posts with label HRV Cup. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HRV Cup. Show all posts
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Saturday, 13 October 2012
Why and How the Champions League format needs to change
I'll start out by saying that I love the concept of the Champions League T20.
There needs to be more focus on domestic cricket, because that is a much more reliable way of growing the game than trying to grow it at the international level. Strong clubs/provinces will pick up players from lesser nations, and give them a chance to develop and succeed. A couple of examples of this from football are George Weah, who is from Liberia, but managed to win a Serie A title with AC Milano and obtained significant recognition for his skills that would not have been possible if he had only been playing for Liberia (who only twice even managed to qualify for the African Cup of Nations during Weah's 19 year career.
Likewise the New Zealand football team managed to go unbeaten in the 2010 Football World Cup, mostly thanks to a solid defense of Winston Reid, who had learned his football playing for a Midtjylland in Denmark, Ryan Nelsen, who had played for DC United and Blackburn Rovers Tommy Smith from Ipswich Town and Ivan Vicelich who had played for Roda JC and RKC Waalwijk in the Netherlands. It is hard to imagine those three players being as compotent if they had just played domestically in New Zealand, for the likes of North Shore, Christchurch United and Auckland City. New Zealand had such a solid defense largely due to the strong club nature of football.
The problem I have with the current Champions League is that it is not a fair competition.
Firstly every first class team is not able to compete, secondly the rankings are arbitrary, and not result based, thirdly the competition is set up in a way that has to much of an element of luck involved.
The Mountaineers from Zimbabwe won the Stanbic Bank Cup quite comfortably. But that is as far as they can go, despite having at least 7 current or former international players in their squad. Likewise the Dhaka Gladiators won the Bangladesh Premier League, contain 9 international players, but were not invited to the tournament.
The rankings are completely wrong. Every time Trinidad and Tobago have been in the tournament they have finished ahead of the South African teams and at least one of the Australia teams. Every time there has been an English team there, their top team has finished ahead of the second South African and Australian team. And yet South Africa and Australia get two teams in the main draw, while the English and West Indian teams need to qualify. This ranking system is ranking teams on how much money they can pull in, rather than how good they are. That is inherently wrong.
The third problem is with the tournament structure. The nature of T20 cricket is that the best team does not always win. However they will win more games over the course of a series. This makes it difficult to have a fair system that is concise enough to not drag on for months. However the current system is far from fair.
The big problem is the qualifying stage. A three team single round-robin is possibly the worst way to decide qualification imaginable. To demonstrate this I ran a simulation using the Pakistani domestic results from the last 3 years. I chose Pakistan because they were the competition that had one team being the most dominant.
The Sialkot Stallions have a formidable record. In the last 3 years they have lost only one match in the Pakistani competition. They have averaged 8.35 runs per over in that time, while their opponents have only averaged 7.23 runs per over. In a fair competition they should almost always make it through the group stages.
The only time they didn't win was the time where Pakistan also used the 3 team single round-robin method of qualification.
I took the Sialkot Stallions' results and then made 3 other teams who were all significantly less strong, but roughly equal to each other. They were all roughly average for other Pakistani teams. I then ran a simulation 1000 times. First with a 3 team single round robin, then with a standard 4 teams pool, where two go through. (if anyone would like a copy of the simulation that I used, just email me)
In the first option (3 team single round-robin) Sialkot went through 62.4% of the time. This means that they missed out in more than one in 3 of the tournaments, despite being a vastly superior team. In the second option, (4 team standard group) Sialkot went through 786 times. This meant that they missed out only 21.4% of the time.
With these numbers the 3 team single round-robin was 76% more likely to eliminate the best team.
I believe that the 3 team single round-robin should be avoided at all costs. Here is the format that I would like to see:
Teams: 3 from India. 2 from Australia, South Africa and England. 1 from West Indies, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. This makes 15 teams. The extra team then is either the team that won the previous competition, or if they already qualified the next best team from their country. For example, the last champions league winners were the Mumbai Indians. Mumbai lost the elimination final in the IPL, so they were effectively 4th overall. Hence they qualify for themselves. If instead RCB had won the final of the Champions League last year, then they would have gone through instead.
This then results in 16 teams. If we were to then have 4 groups of 4, going into 2 groups of 4 then to semis and finals we would need to play 39 matches. The matches could be played 3 per day for the initial round. (One morning, one afternoon and one night, with one double header and one played at another stadium). The second group round could be played 2 matches per day, and then (following a rest day (which would probably be used for travel for some teams) semi-finals and finals.
The whole tournament would easily fit within the 20 day window that the tournament has been using so far, and could even be squeezed to 16 days. (This would require the use of 2 stadiums that are quite close together - like Lords and the Oval, Chandigarh and Mohali, Centurion and the Wanderers, Eden Park and Seddon Park. etc)
It would also be a much fairer system. Each team would have exactly the same mountain in front of them. If anyone can win 8 in a row, they win the cup. In the current system Yorkshire could win 6 in a row, and only be in the semi-finals, where if (for example) KKR win 2 and lose 2 they could also potentially make the semi-finals. Something doesn't seem right about that.
So that's my take on the Champions League. Eventually I'd like it to get to a system where the champion from each country go through, then the next 6 are based on performance at the previous Champions League. So a team coming in the top 6 qualifies an extra spot from their country. (Similar to how the Basketball World Championships work.)
There needs to be more focus on domestic cricket, because that is a much more reliable way of growing the game than trying to grow it at the international level. Strong clubs/provinces will pick up players from lesser nations, and give them a chance to develop and succeed. A couple of examples of this from football are George Weah, who is from Liberia, but managed to win a Serie A title with AC Milano and obtained significant recognition for his skills that would not have been possible if he had only been playing for Liberia (who only twice even managed to qualify for the African Cup of Nations during Weah's 19 year career.
Likewise the New Zealand football team managed to go unbeaten in the 2010 Football World Cup, mostly thanks to a solid defense of Winston Reid, who had learned his football playing for a Midtjylland in Denmark, Ryan Nelsen, who had played for DC United and Blackburn Rovers Tommy Smith from Ipswich Town and Ivan Vicelich who had played for Roda JC and RKC Waalwijk in the Netherlands. It is hard to imagine those three players being as compotent if they had just played domestically in New Zealand, for the likes of North Shore, Christchurch United and Auckland City. New Zealand had such a solid defense largely due to the strong club nature of football.
The problem I have with the current Champions League is that it is not a fair competition.
Firstly every first class team is not able to compete, secondly the rankings are arbitrary, and not result based, thirdly the competition is set up in a way that has to much of an element of luck involved.
The Mountaineers from Zimbabwe won the Stanbic Bank Cup quite comfortably. But that is as far as they can go, despite having at least 7 current or former international players in their squad. Likewise the Dhaka Gladiators won the Bangladesh Premier League, contain 9 international players, but were not invited to the tournament.
The rankings are completely wrong. Every time Trinidad and Tobago have been in the tournament they have finished ahead of the South African teams and at least one of the Australia teams. Every time there has been an English team there, their top team has finished ahead of the second South African and Australian team. And yet South Africa and Australia get two teams in the main draw, while the English and West Indian teams need to qualify. This ranking system is ranking teams on how much money they can pull in, rather than how good they are. That is inherently wrong.
The third problem is with the tournament structure. The nature of T20 cricket is that the best team does not always win. However they will win more games over the course of a series. This makes it difficult to have a fair system that is concise enough to not drag on for months. However the current system is far from fair.
The big problem is the qualifying stage. A three team single round-robin is possibly the worst way to decide qualification imaginable. To demonstrate this I ran a simulation using the Pakistani domestic results from the last 3 years. I chose Pakistan because they were the competition that had one team being the most dominant.
The Sialkot Stallions have a formidable record. In the last 3 years they have lost only one match in the Pakistani competition. They have averaged 8.35 runs per over in that time, while their opponents have only averaged 7.23 runs per over. In a fair competition they should almost always make it through the group stages.
The only time they didn't win was the time where Pakistan also used the 3 team single round-robin method of qualification.
I took the Sialkot Stallions' results and then made 3 other teams who were all significantly less strong, but roughly equal to each other. They were all roughly average for other Pakistani teams. I then ran a simulation 1000 times. First with a 3 team single round robin, then with a standard 4 teams pool, where two go through. (if anyone would like a copy of the simulation that I used, just email me)
In the first option (3 team single round-robin) Sialkot went through 62.4% of the time. This means that they missed out in more than one in 3 of the tournaments, despite being a vastly superior team. In the second option, (4 team standard group) Sialkot went through 786 times. This meant that they missed out only 21.4% of the time.
With these numbers the 3 team single round-robin was 76% more likely to eliminate the best team.
I believe that the 3 team single round-robin should be avoided at all costs. Here is the format that I would like to see:
Teams: 3 from India. 2 from Australia, South Africa and England. 1 from West Indies, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. This makes 15 teams. The extra team then is either the team that won the previous competition, or if they already qualified the next best team from their country. For example, the last champions league winners were the Mumbai Indians. Mumbai lost the elimination final in the IPL, so they were effectively 4th overall. Hence they qualify for themselves. If instead RCB had won the final of the Champions League last year, then they would have gone through instead.
This then results in 16 teams. If we were to then have 4 groups of 4, going into 2 groups of 4 then to semis and finals we would need to play 39 matches. The matches could be played 3 per day for the initial round. (One morning, one afternoon and one night, with one double header and one played at another stadium). The second group round could be played 2 matches per day, and then (following a rest day (which would probably be used for travel for some teams) semi-finals and finals.
The whole tournament would easily fit within the 20 day window that the tournament has been using so far, and could even be squeezed to 16 days. (This would require the use of 2 stadiums that are quite close together - like Lords and the Oval, Chandigarh and Mohali, Centurion and the Wanderers, Eden Park and Seddon Park. etc)
It would also be a much fairer system. Each team would have exactly the same mountain in front of them. If anyone can win 8 in a row, they win the cup. In the current system Yorkshire could win 6 in a row, and only be in the semi-finals, where if (for example) KKR win 2 and lose 2 they could also potentially make the semi-finals. Something doesn't seem right about that.
So that's my take on the Champions League. Eventually I'd like it to get to a system where the champion from each country go through, then the next 6 are based on performance at the previous Champions League. So a team coming in the top 6 qualifies an extra spot from their country. (Similar to how the Basketball World Championships work.)
Sunday, 29 January 2012
Right players, wrong formats?
I was pleased to see that Michael Bates was picked for the New Zealand ODI and T20 teams. I was especially pleased to see that the selection manager commented that he had played well in pressure situations, mirroring my thoughts.
I was also pleased that two other Auckland players, and one former Auckland player that I have enjoyed watching: Colin de Grandhomme, Roneel Hira and Taran Nethula, were also picked. However I have some concerns about the role that de Grandhomme is likely to be asked to perform.
I'll give some background to this. I used to really enjoy watching Craig Spearman play cricket. Particularly the longer form. He had the ability to score runs, and could do it quickly, but had a good temperament and played responsibly when he needed to. Unfortunately he got branded a one day specialist, and got frustrated and left our shores for England.
He only got to play in 19 tests, and averaged about 26 in them (which is not great) but a lot of those matches were played on green-tops and of the players that played in 10 of those tests with him, only 3 averaged over 30. Craig McMillan averaged 28, so there were 4 that averaged more than him. During the same time he played 51 ODI's for an average of 18.72. This is the second lowest average of any batsman who batted more than 40 times in the top 6. Only Alok Kapali stands between him and the title of worst ODI batsman ever. He was in the top 5 in his country for tests, and played only 19, but was a terrible ODI player and played 51. Gloucestershire were not so foolish. They gave him a chance to play a lot of first class cricket, and he rewarded them scoring 19 centuries for them between 2003 and 2007, including their record score of 341.
The New Zealand selectors then repeated the dose. They picked Andre Adams as an ODI specialist also. Now it's not that Adams was a bad ODI player. A bowling average of 31 and a bowling average of 5.22, combined with a batting average of 17.45 and a strike rate over 100 suggests that he was a useful contributor. However he only got to play one test. He took 3/44 in the first innings and 3/61 in the second, helping lead New Zealand to a victory over England. For some reason he was never again selected to play a test match, and has remained with an average of 17.5. He was never selected despite having a first class average of about 23 and repeatedly taking truck loads of wickets in first class matches for Auckland and Notts. (He took the third most first class wickets in the world in 2010 and 2011, and also took more than 50 wickets in 2005, 2006 and 2007). But he was pigeon-hoed as a one day player, so he wasn't picked for any more test cricket. As a result Adams made use of his Vincentian ancestry and is now eligible for the West Indies instead of New Zealand.
The next player to have suffered this fate at the hands of the New Zealand selectors was Neil Broom. (Now they still have time to redeem this one, as he is still available for selection.) Broom is an aggressive top/middle order batsman from Otago. He has scored 10 first class hundreds in 69 matches at an average of over 40. Normally batting at number 3 or 4. As a result the selectors picked him at number 6 and 7 for a few one day matches. He has also not been picked for a test yet. He's another good player who had performed much better in first class than in limited overs cricket, and yet has only been picked in the format that he's been the least successful in.
Now the selectors have picked de Grandhomme to play in the t20's and Cantabrian Andrew Ellis to play in the ODI matches. Both are big hitting batsmen, and reasonable medium/fast medium bowlers. However de Grandhomme has been amazing in the one day matches, and good in the t20's and Ellis has been a star in the t20's, but not quite as effective in the one day matches.
Here are their results this season:
* de Grandhomme hardly bowled in T20 matches (only 4 overs), and as a results his averages for this form are not a good indication of his ability.
Effectiveness is runs per wicket x runs per ball. It is a good way of measuring players skills in limited overs matches.
We see that Ellis has had a worse season than de Grandhomme in the 50 over matches both with the bat and the ball, but performed better with the bat in the t20 matches than de Grandhomme and actually bowled a reasonable number of overs, rather than just filling in on occasion.
While this is a small sample, I feel that the two players are in the wrong teams. They are the right players, but if there is only room for one in each team then they have been picked in the wrong formats.
I was also pleased that two other Auckland players, and one former Auckland player that I have enjoyed watching: Colin de Grandhomme, Roneel Hira and Taran Nethula, were also picked. However I have some concerns about the role that de Grandhomme is likely to be asked to perform.
I'll give some background to this. I used to really enjoy watching Craig Spearman play cricket. Particularly the longer form. He had the ability to score runs, and could do it quickly, but had a good temperament and played responsibly when he needed to. Unfortunately he got branded a one day specialist, and got frustrated and left our shores for England.
He only got to play in 19 tests, and averaged about 26 in them (which is not great) but a lot of those matches were played on green-tops and of the players that played in 10 of those tests with him, only 3 averaged over 30. Craig McMillan averaged 28, so there were 4 that averaged more than him. During the same time he played 51 ODI's for an average of 18.72. This is the second lowest average of any batsman who batted more than 40 times in the top 6. Only Alok Kapali stands between him and the title of worst ODI batsman ever. He was in the top 5 in his country for tests, and played only 19, but was a terrible ODI player and played 51. Gloucestershire were not so foolish. They gave him a chance to play a lot of first class cricket, and he rewarded them scoring 19 centuries for them between 2003 and 2007, including their record score of 341.
The New Zealand selectors then repeated the dose. They picked Andre Adams as an ODI specialist also. Now it's not that Adams was a bad ODI player. A bowling average of 31 and a bowling average of 5.22, combined with a batting average of 17.45 and a strike rate over 100 suggests that he was a useful contributor. However he only got to play one test. He took 3/44 in the first innings and 3/61 in the second, helping lead New Zealand to a victory over England. For some reason he was never again selected to play a test match, and has remained with an average of 17.5. He was never selected despite having a first class average of about 23 and repeatedly taking truck loads of wickets in first class matches for Auckland and Notts. (He took the third most first class wickets in the world in 2010 and 2011, and also took more than 50 wickets in 2005, 2006 and 2007). But he was pigeon-hoed as a one day player, so he wasn't picked for any more test cricket. As a result Adams made use of his Vincentian ancestry and is now eligible for the West Indies instead of New Zealand.
The next player to have suffered this fate at the hands of the New Zealand selectors was Neil Broom. (Now they still have time to redeem this one, as he is still available for selection.) Broom is an aggressive top/middle order batsman from Otago. He has scored 10 first class hundreds in 69 matches at an average of over 40. Normally batting at number 3 or 4. As a result the selectors picked him at number 6 and 7 for a few one day matches. He has also not been picked for a test yet. He's another good player who had performed much better in first class than in limited overs cricket, and yet has only been picked in the format that he's been the least successful in.
Now the selectors have picked de Grandhomme to play in the t20's and Cantabrian Andrew Ellis to play in the ODI matches. Both are big hitting batsmen, and reasonable medium/fast medium bowlers. However de Grandhomme has been amazing in the one day matches, and good in the t20's and Ellis has been a star in the t20's, but not quite as effective in the one day matches.
Here are their results this season:
| . | De Grandhomme | Ellis |
| List A runs | 117 | 106 |
| List A average | 58.50 | 26.50 |
| List A strike rates | 121.87 | 116.48 |
| T20 runs | 156 | 129 |
| T20 average | 22.28 | 21.50 |
| T20 strike rates | 160.82 | 186.95 |
| List A batting effectiveness | 71.29 | 30.87 |
| T20 batting effectiveness | 35.83 | 40.19 |
| List A wickets | 3 | 5 |
| List A averages | 32.66 | 32.60 |
| List A economy | 4.45 | 4.63 |
| T20 wickets | 2 | 7 |
| T20 averages | 17.00 | 37.28 |
| T20 economy | 8.50 | 8.41 |
| List A bowling effectiveness | 24.22 | 25.16 |
| T20 bowling effectiveness | 24.08 | 52.25 |
* de Grandhomme hardly bowled in T20 matches (only 4 overs), and as a results his averages for this form are not a good indication of his ability.
Effectiveness is runs per wicket x runs per ball. It is a good way of measuring players skills in limited overs matches.
We see that Ellis has had a worse season than de Grandhomme in the 50 over matches both with the bat and the ball, but performed better with the bat in the t20 matches than de Grandhomme and actually bowled a reasonable number of overs, rather than just filling in on occasion.
While this is a small sample, I feel that the two players are in the wrong teams. They are the right players, but if there is only room for one in each team then they have been picked in the wrong formats.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Big Occasion Bates
Yesterday the (mighty) Auckland Aces were playing in their third consecutive HRV Cup final. Auckland won convincingly. During the time between their first and third final they have also played Pakistan in a tour T20 match and played 2 Champions League matches.Throughout these 6 big occasion matches one player has really been extraordinary: left arm quick bowler Michael Bates.
Here are his results:
| Match | Opposition | Result | Figures |
| 2009/10 HRV Cup final | Central Districts | Loss | 4-0-61-3 |
| Tour match | Pakistan | Win | 3-0-11-4 |
| 2010/11 HRV Cup Final | Central Districts | Win | 4-1-18-4 |
| 2011 Champions League T20 | Kolkata Knight Riders | Loss | 4-0-13-1 |
| 2011 Champions League T20 | Somerset | Loss | 4-1-13-2 |
| 2011/12 HRV Cup Final | Canterbury | Win | 3-0-18-3 |
| Overall | 22-2-134-17 |
This gives him an average of 7.88, an economy rate of 6.09 and a strike rate of 7.64. If we just look at the last 2 years, removing the first final at the postage stamp sized Pukekura Park, his figures become 18-2-73-14. That is a breath-takingly low economy rate of 4.06, average of 5.2 and strike rate of 7.71.
How good are those numbers? Here are some comparisons: The best averaging bowler in the world is Krishmar Santoki from Jamaica who averages 8.56; the best economy rate is Samuel Badree from Trinidad and Tobago who's economy rate is 4.43; the best strike rate is also Santoki at 9.3. Bates's figures in the last 5 finals are better than all of these. Now it is true that 5 matches is a small sample size, but the results are still outstanding.
Given these numbers it is staggering that he hasn't been picked up by an overseas team of some variety. He hasn't even been picked for New Zealand A.
Now sometimes a bowler can get good figures by getting bad batsmen out. Not the case with Bates, here is the list of his dismissals:
Ross Taylor*
Kieran Noema-Barnett
Jacob Oram*
Mohammad Hafeez*
Shahid Afridi*
Ahmed Shezad*
Wahab Riaz
Peter Ingram*
Jamie How*
Ian Blackwell*
Doug Bracewell
Manvinder Bisla
Peter Trego
Nick Compton
Rob Nichol*
Andrew Ellis
Reece Young*
* - has batted in the top 6 in International Cricket
In his other T20 matches, when the stage is not so big, he has preformed reasonably well, but not nearly as well as he has on the big stage. Here are his stats excluding these matches: 86.5-1-755-25 Average 30.2, Economy Rate 8.73, Strike Rate 20.76.
Teams need consistent performers. But they also need players that can step up on the big occasions. So far Michael Bates has proved that he can do just that.
Tuesday, 27 December 2011
Two unusual stumpings.
This post is a little more anorackish and a little less statistical than my usual posts.
I was enjoying the ability to watch two games at the same time today. I was flicking between the 2nd day of the Australia India test, and the HRV Cup twenty20 match between Central Districts and Wellington.
Wellington were demonstrating their ability to find a way to lose from what looked like a certain winning position, which was making me quite happy, as I had put some money on CD to win. During the game I noticed two interesting dismissals.
Stumping One Cachopa st van Wyk b Nethula
First it was Tarun Nethula who bowled a very effective spell of 1/16 off 4 overs. He bowled a delivery that seemed to drift in quite sharply to an advancing Craig Cachopa. It came off the inside edge, and started rolling towards the crease. Quick as a flash Kruger van Wyk was around the stumps, picked up the ball and took off the bails.
My understanding of the law was that the keeper was not allowed to take the ball in front of the stumps for a stumping. So I assumed that the dismissal would have to be changed to a run out. One of the commentators on TV (Mark Richardson) felt the same.
However I went to my trusty copy of Tom Smith's New Umpiring and Scoring to see what it had to say about this situation. It took a bit of reading, but it turns out that the dismissal was in fact correct and was stumped. The key passage is in law 40 (The Wicket-keeper) section 3:
"The wicket-keeper shall remain wholly behind the wicket at the striker’s end from the moment the ball comes into play until (a) a ball delivered by the bowler either (i) touches the bat or person of the striker or (ii) passes the wicket at the striker’s end or (b) the striker attempts a run."
Clearly once the ball hits the batsman or bat, it is fair game, and van Wyk was completely right to come out from behind the stumps and go for the ball.
Stumping Two Boam st van Wyk b Milne
Harry Boam Wellington's last hope was facing New Zealand's fastest bowler, Adam Milne. Well, he wasn't really Wellington's last hope - the match was long gone, but it sounds more dramatic to imagine that there was something on it. Wellington needed 26 runs off the last 2 deliveries, with the batting powerhouse that is Muttiah Muralitheran at the other end. I've once seen Andre Adams win a game off the last delivery when 11 were needed, but 26 off 2 is a little ridiculous. Still he was on 47 and within sight of a pyrrhic 50. So he came down the pitch and tried to hoist Adam Milne into the Wellington harbour.
This plan would have been more effective if he had made contact with the ball. Instead he got himself tide up in knots and lost all sense of balance and direction. the ball carried through unimpinged to van Wyk who was standing about 20 meters behind the stumps. Van Wyk was alert to the situation and, still gloved, threw down the stumps, leaving Boam short of his ground by about 2 meters. Not only was this a sensational piece of work to throw down the stumps with a glove still on, it created an interesting situation. Was it run out or stumped.
We generally don't think of a stumping off a fast bowler. (To be fair we don't often think of any sort of dismissal off a fast bowler in New Zealand - we are the nation that invented dibbly-dobbly bowling, where 130km/h is considered express pace) Normally that is the domain of spin bowlers or occasionally medium pacers. However the rules do not define who is allowed to take a stumping.
In fact the rules are very clear that if a batsman is not attempting a run, is out of his ground and the ball is "kicked or thrown onto the stumps by the wicket-keeper" then it is to be considered a stumping. Which meant that it was disappointing when the scorers on TV described the dismissal as "Boam run out (van Wyk)."
Fortunately the umpires afterwards communicated with the scorers and Adam Milne got given credit for what is likely to be his only ever stumping in his career (provided he doesn't replicate Shane Thompson and go from being a 150km/h quick bowler to an innocuous spinner - with a nasty bouncer).
I have umpired in two games this year when an opening batsman (same in both matches) was stumped by a keeper standing back to a quick bowler (same bowler-keeper combination both times, once in a 1-day game, once in a 2 day game), but both of these were a case of the batsman taking guard outside his crease, and not being aware enough to step back into his ground. (once is understandable, the second time incurred the wrath of his captain, and he batted at 9 for the second innings). The difference between these two situations is that the games I was umpiring were involving 15 year-old's and not professional cricketers, and both time it wasn't good bowling that drew the batsman out, and got him tangled up, it was just poor awareness.
Kruger van Wyk you have earned yourself the title of Cricketgeek hero of the week, and a like on Facebook.
I was enjoying the ability to watch two games at the same time today. I was flicking between the 2nd day of the Australia India test, and the HRV Cup twenty20 match between Central Districts and Wellington.
Wellington were demonstrating their ability to find a way to lose from what looked like a certain winning position, which was making me quite happy, as I had put some money on CD to win. During the game I noticed two interesting dismissals.
Stumping One Cachopa st van Wyk b Nethula
First it was Tarun Nethula who bowled a very effective spell of 1/16 off 4 overs. He bowled a delivery that seemed to drift in quite sharply to an advancing Craig Cachopa. It came off the inside edge, and started rolling towards the crease. Quick as a flash Kruger van Wyk was around the stumps, picked up the ball and took off the bails.
My understanding of the law was that the keeper was not allowed to take the ball in front of the stumps for a stumping. So I assumed that the dismissal would have to be changed to a run out. One of the commentators on TV (Mark Richardson) felt the same.
However I went to my trusty copy of Tom Smith's New Umpiring and Scoring to see what it had to say about this situation. It took a bit of reading, but it turns out that the dismissal was in fact correct and was stumped. The key passage is in law 40 (The Wicket-keeper) section 3:
"The wicket-keeper shall remain wholly behind the wicket at the striker’s end from the moment the ball comes into play until (a) a ball delivered by the bowler either (i) touches the bat or person of the striker or (ii) passes the wicket at the striker’s end or (b) the striker attempts a run."
Clearly once the ball hits the batsman or bat, it is fair game, and van Wyk was completely right to come out from behind the stumps and go for the ball.
Stumping Two Boam st van Wyk b Milne
Harry Boam Wellington's last hope was facing New Zealand's fastest bowler, Adam Milne. Well, he wasn't really Wellington's last hope - the match was long gone, but it sounds more dramatic to imagine that there was something on it. Wellington needed 26 runs off the last 2 deliveries, with the batting powerhouse that is Muttiah Muralitheran at the other end. I've once seen Andre Adams win a game off the last delivery when 11 were needed, but 26 off 2 is a little ridiculous. Still he was on 47 and within sight of a pyrrhic 50. So he came down the pitch and tried to hoist Adam Milne into the Wellington harbour.
This plan would have been more effective if he had made contact with the ball. Instead he got himself tide up in knots and lost all sense of balance and direction. the ball carried through unimpinged to van Wyk who was standing about 20 meters behind the stumps. Van Wyk was alert to the situation and, still gloved, threw down the stumps, leaving Boam short of his ground by about 2 meters. Not only was this a sensational piece of work to throw down the stumps with a glove still on, it created an interesting situation. Was it run out or stumped.
We generally don't think of a stumping off a fast bowler. (To be fair we don't often think of any sort of dismissal off a fast bowler in New Zealand - we are the nation that invented dibbly-dobbly bowling, where 130km/h is considered express pace) Normally that is the domain of spin bowlers or occasionally medium pacers. However the rules do not define who is allowed to take a stumping.
In fact the rules are very clear that if a batsman is not attempting a run, is out of his ground and the ball is "kicked or thrown onto the stumps by the wicket-keeper" then it is to be considered a stumping. Which meant that it was disappointing when the scorers on TV described the dismissal as "Boam run out (van Wyk)."
Fortunately the umpires afterwards communicated with the scorers and Adam Milne got given credit for what is likely to be his only ever stumping in his career (provided he doesn't replicate Shane Thompson and go from being a 150km/h quick bowler to an innocuous spinner - with a nasty bouncer).
I have umpired in two games this year when an opening batsman (same in both matches) was stumped by a keeper standing back to a quick bowler (same bowler-keeper combination both times, once in a 1-day game, once in a 2 day game), but both of these were a case of the batsman taking guard outside his crease, and not being aware enough to step back into his ground. (once is understandable, the second time incurred the wrath of his captain, and he batted at 9 for the second innings). The difference between these two situations is that the games I was umpiring were involving 15 year-old's and not professional cricketers, and both time it wasn't good bowling that drew the batsman out, and got him tangled up, it was just poor awareness.
Kruger van Wyk you have earned yourself the title of Cricketgeek hero of the week, and a like on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)