Test team of the year 2012

For the test team of the year, I’ve given extra weight to performances away from home. Often the mark of great players is that they can master foreign conditions. For each player I’ve generated a weighted average, and I’ve used that to pick the team.

I’ve also looked at openers as a separate skill to batting in numbers 3-5. I also feel that numbers 6 and 7 need to be multi-skilled players: who can contribute with the bat and either the ball or the gloves. As a result I’ve picked the best batsman among the keepers. It is very difficult to quantify the ability of keepers, and while I feel that Prasanna Jayawardene is currently without peer as a keeper, his batting (while improving) is significantly weaker than some of the other keepers.

With the bowlers I decided on at least 2 quick bowlers and at least one spinner. After that I picked the next best bowler. There were a few times that a team went in with either 3 spinners or 4 pace bowlers, but every time the results were not good enough to demand it being replicated in this team.

There were a couple of bowlers who had a good year without playing any away matches. For these players I looked at the average difference between home matches and away matches, and adjusted their weighted averages accordingly.

Openers: Alastair Cook and Graeme Smith.

While these two may not have the crowd in raptures with scintillating stroke-play, they have scored a lot of runs this year, both home and away.

Name	Overall Average	Away Average	Weighted average
AN Cook (Eng)	48.03	71.9	54.67
GC Smith (SA)	48.52	50.56	49.52
Mohammad Hafeez (Pak)	45.9	52.5	48.24
AN Petersen (SA)	47	43.06	45.09
TM Dilshan (SL)	40.13	42	40.67
DA Warner (Aus)	43.77	28.5	39.96

Numbers 3-5: Marlon Samuels, Michael Clarke and Shivnarine Chanderpaul

Michael Clarke has been amazing in Australia, but his away form was so poor that he was almost pipped for the spot by Amla.

Name	Overall Average	Away Average	Weighted average
S Chanderpaul (WI)	109.55	196	131.17
MN Samuels (WI)	86.6	94.71	89.94
MJ Clarke (Aus)	106.33	31.33	84.9
HM Amla (SA)	70.93	74.85	72.83
JH Kallis (SA)	70	56	63.3
Azhar Ali (Pak)	55.1	60	56.73
MEK Hussey (Aus)	61.61	36.5	53.68
AB de Villiers (SA)	58.21	46.78	52.5
Asad Shafiq (Pak)	47.11	64.25	52.38

All Rounder: Jacques Kallis.

While Samuels came out as the best all-rounder for the year, he is already in the team for his batting (and there’s also a chance he won’t be allowed to bowl). Kallis has had a much improved year with the ball, his averages were similar to Dale Steyn for the year.

Name	Batting	Bowling	Difference
MN Samuels (WI)	89.94	42.8	47.14
JH Kallis (SA)	63.3	30.89	32.41
Mohammad Hafeez (Pak)	48.24	28.36	19.88
KS Williamson (NZ)	30.52	41.67	-11.15
MEK Hussey (Aus)	56.73	73	-16.27
SR Watson (Aus)	31.7	48	-16.3

Keeper: AB de Villiers

De Villiers almost made the team as a batsman alone. Ramdin recovered well from having calls for his head at the start of the year.

Name	Overall Average	Away Average	Weighted average
AB de Villiers (SA)	48.55	48.55	48.56
D Ramdin (WI)	42.87	54.16	47.71
MJ Prior (Eng)	38.85	39.62	39.07
MS Wade (Aus)	36.27	39.6	37.31
MS Dhoni (India)	40.63	24.33	37.14
Adnan Akmal (Pak)	25.25	37.66	28.64

Bowlers: Tino Best, Tim Southee, Narsingh Deonarine and Vernon Philander

This was the big surprise for me. Where is Dale Steyn? Where is James Anderson? Probably the best two bowlers in the world and they don’t even feature. Likewise Saeed Ajmal just gets pipped. These are not the bowlers that I would pick if I were selecting a team other than on stats.

bowler	overall average	away average	weighted average
TL Best (WI)	16.27	14.92	15.69
TG Southee (NZ)	22.64	17.3	20.08
N Deonarine (WI)	19	-	20.27
VD Philander (SA)	21.11	21.83	21.45
BW Hilfenhaus (Aus)	21.67	20.8	21.49
Junaid Khan (Pak)	24.14	21.78	22.96
Saeed Ajmal (Pak)	20.56	29.93	23.17
PM Siddle (Aus)	23.09	38.33	24.14
KAJ Roach (WI)	22.25	34.25	24.3
MA Starc (Aus)	25.05	27.5	25.27
Abdur Rehman (Pak)	22.64	41.33	26.26
HMRKB Herath (SL)	23.61	62.16	27.12
MS Panesar (Eng)	26.03	29.31	27.23
GP Swann (Eng)	29.93	23.61	27.54
PP Ojha (India)	25.96	-	27.7
JM Anderson (Eng)	29.5	26.61	28.62
TA Boult (NZ)	30.77	27.05	29.1
DW Steyn (SA)	29.71	29.08	29.41

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.

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.

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 2nd ODI WI v NZ Kingston

Chris Gayle is too good at the moment.

The rest of the West Indian players scored 180 off 193 (incl extras), roughly 5 and a half an over. New Zealand scored 260 off 47 overs, roughly 5 and a half an over. And yet this match was not even close. Gayle is just too good.

The match had the usual ebbs and flows, but throughout it West Indies were better in almost every area.

It started with New Zealand keeping the West Indies under some control for the first 4 overs. West Indies were 1/10, and it was looking like the decision to bowl first was a good one. Then Gayle hit 3 sixes off Kyle Mills.

Despite New Zealand's fielding and bowling being a lot sharper than in previous games, the score kept climbing. For a large section of the game they were looking like they were going to get more than 350. At the other end first Dwayne Smith then Marlon Samuels kept the pressure on the New Zealand attack, occasionally scoring with big shots, but feeding Gayle the strike well.

Gayle seemed to make a special effort to attack Mills and that was probably the best battle of the match. Mills got his man eventually, but he had conceded 34 runs off the 33 deliveries that he bowled to Gayle. The other key battle was Samuels against Nethula. Nethula made life difficult for Samuels, who looked eager to get on top of his fellow spinner. Nethula held Samuels to 19 off 26 deliveries.

West Indies looked all set to explode on 227 off 37, but the New Zealand bowlers stepped up at the death. West Indies only scored 66 off the last 10 overs, a good effort on a 220 pitch, but they really should have been looking for 40 more. Not that it mattered. In the last 6 overs the New Zealand bowlers hit their lengths very well and the West Indian batsmen managed only 3 boundaries.

The New Zealand innings started off well again, having the highest opening partnership for the 4th consecutive match. But Guptill managed to keep picking out fielders. The defining feature of his play in the New Zealand summer was how straight he hit the ball. Often mid on and mid off had to stand so close together that they left gaps in the covers and at mid wicket for him to work singles. Today he managed to hit the ball directly to mid on or mid off a number of times. Part of this may have been due to the West Indian bowling plan.

One of the advantages of playing at home is that you know how a pitch is going to behave, and consequently what length is the hardest to score off. The West Indian bowlers (particularly their spinners and Sammy) bowled a shorter length than the New Zealanders. Chatting to Marlon Samuels after the match he said that that was a deliberate plan, because the pitch tended to hold up as the day went on. Perhaps the difficulty in timing the ball was in part due to this.

The major highlight of the New Zealand innings was BJ Wattling. On Thursday he looked scratchy and out of form. It was almost like he scored the runs more by good luck than good management. Today however he looked classy. It was as though his fifty in the first game convinced him that he could play at this level, and he went out today believing it. His 72* off 62 was as good an innings as you are likely to see, and was a surprise to me, because I have never seen him display that level of ability.

For a brief moment it even looked like Wattling and Oram might take New Zealand home. But 316 was always too much, and it proved to be so.

Today was the West Indies day, and Chris Gayle and Marlon Samuels' day in particular.

Preview West Indies v New Zealand in Lauderhill

I feels odd to be talking about a match in USA. Despite the fact that USA is actually a much bigger cricket audience than people realise, it still is not known for cricket. But for the second time in the last 2 years, New Zealand are heading to Lauderhill to play a couple of T20 matches. This time the opponent is the West Indies.

The last series was played in particularly benign conditions. There was nothing in the pitch for either the bowlers or the batsmen, and as a result the scoring was at or under 6 an over for every innings in the series.

There has been a lot of work at the Central Broward Regional Park Stadium, and it looks amazing on Google maps, but preparing cricket pitches is a dark art, and not one that is particularly easy. If they manage to get a good pitch in only the 3rd and 4th real match there it will be quite an accomplishment.

The headlines of this tour will all be about the likes of Narine, Gayle, Pollard, Guptil, Taylor and Southee. However given that it is quite likely to be low and slow, the match is likely to be decided by the skiddy spin bowlers and crafty medium pacers. The players who I'm going to be expecting to play a big role are Marlon Samuels, Nathan McCullum, Jacob Oram and Darren Sammy.

Making the ball arrive at a different time to what the batsman expects is the key to this sort of pitch, and these 4 bowlers are all very good at that. All have a good recent record with the ball too.

Bowling over the last 2 years in T20I:

Bowler	Matches	Wickets	Average	Economy
MN Samuels	7	6	8.66	5.37
NL McCullum	10	13	13.69	6.59
DJG Sammy	8	6	26.00	7.03
JDP Oram	2	2	26.00	7.42

The other bowler that I look forward to watching is Roneel Hira. Probably my favourite player who is currently playing, Hira is a heady bowler, dynamite fielder and effective batsman. He had a great HRV Cup in the New Zealand domestic season, and he will need to really step up in this series as Daniel Vettori has made himself available for T20's again, and he needs to show that he offers enough for the selectors to be prepared to run two left arm orthodox bowlers.

The other one that I am interested to see is Samuel Badree. I watched him bowl for Trinidad and Tobago, and he looked like he was quite tricky. On a slow pitch he could be a difficult prospect also.

So those are a couple of things for those of you watching this match to look out for. Hopefully it will be a pitch that provides plenty for both bat and ball. If it does this could be a fantastic series, but either way both teams are an interesting mix of crafty cricketers and outstanding athletes that could make this an absorbing match even on a bad pitch.