Grief and Success: The Blackcaps response to Phillip Hughes

The New Zealand team put out their bats in memory of Hughes

In the wake of the death of Phillip Hughes and the following outstanding performance by the Blackcaps, I was interested in the opinion of a sports psychologist as to if the two were likely to be connected.  I rang Vicki Aitken, a High Performance Sports Mentor who has a background working with a number of sports, including cricket.

I felt that it would be interesting to find out if she felt that the impressive performance might have been a part of how the New Zealand team responded to the death of Hughes, who was a personal friend of a number of members of the team.

Here's her response to my question:

So how does this play mentally?  I’m speculating from a distance but I would suggest a number of factors may have been involved here:

I believe there are 6 aspects that go into top performance one of which is the need to have a holistic life with good life balance going on. A death can help you put your own life into perspective and the game back into its rightful place as being exactly that a game (albeit a great game!). Athletes notoriously perform better when there is life balance and or perspective going on. The comments from Ross Taylor about playing naturally and like a kid give this argument some credibility.

Lack of emotional response can be a two edge sword. The positive side is that when they make a mistake or error by not responding emotionally rather than dwelling on the past it allows them to stay in the moment more easily which is where you need to be to perform at your very best.

Phil Hughes death (and commemoration of his life) can also be a motivational factor. Athletes have been known to use and attribute their successes at highly emotional times like this to their mate or loved one. Where thoughts are filled between balls of the man in question. So that by the time they switch on again to face the next ball they are 110% focused and in the moment inspired to do so by the legend that has now gone. Two golf examples spring to mind where this has happened: Darren Clarke at the Ryder Cup in 2006 shortly after his wife died of cancer, he played remarkably well helping the Europeans to victory. And back in the 1995 Ben Crenshaw used the death of his legend coach Harvey Penick the week before to go on and win the Masters.

Vicki Aitken – High Performance Sports Mentor – BA, PGDipPE, MPhEd; BASES Accredited, SESNZ Member.    www.hpsportsacademy.com

Who should win the NZ cricket awards

I was asked by Tony Veitch to put together some stats for the different awards on offer for the New Zealand Cricket Awards tonight.

I could have just brought up a list of averages, but that's really not the CricketGeek style, so I decided to delve into things a little more closely.

One of the difficult things in cricket statistics is to compare bowling success with batting success. For example, which is better taking 5/84 or scoring 172? We need a device to compare the two disciplines.

I decided to compare each player's year with the historical averages for their position. For example, for batting I compared the batting average with year end batting averages throughout history. I had a cut off of 10 innings, as making a cut off much higher than that excludes too many players, as most teams play less than 10 tests per year. I then compared a player's average to the historical average of averages, and the standard deviation of averages to generate a z-score. (For more on Z-scores, see This NFL blog post)

I used batting average and bowling average for test cricket, as really what we care about is scoring runs and taking wickets. I wasn't totally happy with the results, as there was no advantage for the players who had maintained a high standard over a number of games, rather than just one. (James Neesham, for example, averaged 171 this season, but only over one match).  I first filtered out anyone who hadn't either batted in 10 matches or who had bowled less than 100 overs. Then I multiplied the z-score by the square root of the number of innings that they had applied their skill in, in order to get a fairer list. It only caused a couple of positional changes, but the new lists looked more appropriate.

Here's the test lists.

Player - Skill	Average	Ranking
LRPL Taylor - batting	81.60	12.3
BB McCullum - batting	52.73	5.0
TG Southee - bowling	20.07	3.8
TA Boult - bowling	22.36	3.6
KS Williamson - batting	47.21	3.4
BJ Watling - batting	42.27	2.0
N Wagner - bowling	30.42	1.1
CJ Anderson - bowling	30.54	1.0
CJ Anderson - batting	32.70	-0.3
TA Boult - batting	32.25	-0.4

I would give the award to Ross Taylor. He scored 816 runs at an average of 81.60. He past 50 in half of his innings. McCullum, Southee, Boult and Williamson all had great years, but Taylor's average really makes his numbers stand out.

Next I looked at the ODI lists.

Here I decided to use the batting and bowling index developed by S Rajesh from Cricinfo (and me separately). Again I compared the players index to the historical data.

Here's the list:

Player - Skill	Index	Ranking
CJ Anderson - batting	84.48	16.1
LRPL Taylor - batting	43.77	6.9
MJ Guptill - batting	44.22	6.4
KS Williamson - batting	39.04	4.7
MJ McClenaghan - bowling	23.87	1.1
NL McCullum - batting	26.23	0.9
JDS Neesham - bowling	23.69	0.8
CJ Anderson - bowling	24.85	0.7
KD Mills - bowling	25.97	0.7
L Ronchi - batting	22.93	-0.1

Again a batsman takes the title. This, however was not particularly surprising. Anderson was immense with the bat, and generally the games were played on high-scoring pitches, which don't really flatter bowling statistics.

For the T20 award I used batting index, but my own metric for bowling. In a previous post I showed how each wicket worked out to roughly 5 runs in a t20. Accordingly we can take 5 runs off a bowler's total for every wicket they have taken. They then get a modified run rate. I used this to compare the NZ players' years to the historical data. This is a little less relevant, as there is not a lot of historical data (about 1/10 the quantity of test and ODI information) and also New Zealand only played 6 matches, so the sample size is very small.

Here is the list:

Player - Skill	Index/Modified run rate	Ranking
L Ronchi - batting	221.11	14.7
BB McCullum - batting	101.08	4.1
AF Milne - bowling	2.75	2.9
AP Devcich - batting	73.34	1.7
C Munro - batting	60.04	1.5
JDS Neesham - bowling	5.00	0.5
JD Ryder - batting	44.02	0.0
NL McCullum - batting	42.25	-0.1
NL McCullum - bowling	5.64	-0.3
HD Rutherford - batting	40.02	-0.3

Luke Ronchi is a bit of a surprise here, but I remember looking up his stats and being surprised as to how effective he has been in t20s recently. During the course of the year he averaged 133 at a strike rate of 166. Those are quite ridiculous numbers.

The last major prize left is the Sir Richard Hadlee Medal, for the best overall. For me that goes to Brendon McCullum. He managed to attract the attention of the whole nation with his 300, and he also captained the side particularly well across all the formats. There would be a fair argument for Taylor and Anderson, but for me, McCullum needs to be acknowledged some how, and that award seems appropriate.

Who would you give the overall award to?

Concentration vs Technique revisited

Ed Cowan, often uprooted after getting in.

A couple of years ago I wrote an article looking at players who capitalised on getting a start, and at players who struggled to do so.

With the gap between test matches at the moment, it's a good time to look at the numbers again.

I looked at all players who had faced at least 250 balls in 20 or more innings in last 3 years. I also restricted it to players who had at least 7 innings of less than 20 and at least 7 innings of 20 or more in that time.

For the average from 20, I subtracted 20 from their average in innings with a total score of 20+.

Here are the players who have the biggest positive difference between their average from 0 and their average from 20.

Name	Innings 20+	Innings under 20	Average	Average 20+	Difference
MS Wade (Aus)	7	15	34.61	96.25	61.64
MG Johnson (Aus)	8	23	17.85	56.40	38.55
CA Pujara (India)	12	10	65.55	101.88	36.33
IR Bell (Eng)	28	20	56.15	84.31	28.16
AN Cook (Eng)	32	29	55.59	82.20	26.61
KC Sangakkara (SL)	32	21	62.48	84.48	22.00
JH Kallis (SA)	26	17	63.47	84.61	21.14
SCJ Broad (Eng)	12	24	24.36	45.00	20.64
MJ Prior (Eng)	29	21	50.82	70.52	19.70
MJ Clarke (Aus)	32	25	53.70	73.27	19.57
M Vijay (India)	9	11	40.25	58.77	18.52
KP Pietersen (Eng)	28	25	48.50	66.80	18.30
RT Ponting (Aus)	20	24	34.52	52.27	17.75
HMRKB Herath (SL)	10	29	17.85	35.00	17.15

The two names at the top of this list were fascinating. I had no idea that those two had been so good at capitalising on a start. It suggests that early wickets down the order will be very important for England in the upcoming Ashes series.

The other end of the table is the players who have a tendency to throw away their wickets after getting a start.

Name	Innings 20+	Innings under 20	Average	Average 20+	Difference
AN Petersen (SA)	29	12	37.64	28.17	-9.47
EJM Cowan (Aus)	19	11	32.9	27.78	-5.12
AB de Villiers (SA)	34	9	70.34	66.00	-4.34
GP Swann (Eng)	15	22	19.15	15.53	-3.62
SR Watson (Aus)	27	17	32.48	29.50	-2.98
DG Brownlie (NZ)	13	8	32.8	29.91	-2.89
HAPW Jayawardene (SL)	17	15	30.57	28.00	-2.57
G Gambhir (India)	23	18	30.57	28.21	-2.36
AJ Strauss (Eng)	29	19	34.06	32.67	-1.39
Tamim Iqbal (Ban)	13	9	37.86	37.07	-0.79
GC Smith (SA)	30	17	44.4	44.07	-0.33
AB Barath (WI)	11	13	21.58	21.90	0.32
V Kohli (India)	19	12	41.96	42.94	0.98
CS Baugh (WI)	9	17	17.25	18.25	1.00

It's surprising to see two openers at the top of this list. These two do the hard work regularly, both getting to 20 roughly twice as often as they don't, but then they don't make the most of it. In fact it was a tweet from Gary Naylor from 99.94 that made me think about redoing this analysis, as Cowan's record is quite remarkable.

Does any opening bat get in and get out more often than Ed Cowan? 40 and 35 vs Durham - but he seems to score that in every match!
— Gary Naylor (@garynaylor999) May 1, 2013

It made me wonder where these two sat overall among openers. Using the same conditions, I compiled this list, looking only at innings where a batsman was opening the batting:

Name	Innings 20+	Innings under 20	Average	Average 20+	Difference
AN Petersen (SA)	31	11	38.36	28.96	-9.40
CM Spearman (NZ)	17	12	23.96	16.70	-7.26
RW Barber (Eng)	22	11	38.62	31.54	-7.08
BM Laird (Aus)	26	14	35.28	29.76	-5.52
H Sutcliffe (Eng)	65	18	61.10	55.82	-5.28
A Turner (Aus)	17	10	29.53	24.25	-5.28
CJ Barnett (Eng)	14	7	39.65	34.53	-5.12
BK Kunderan (India)	13	8	41.15	36.15	-5.00
UC Hathurusingha (SL)	25	17	30.73	26.12	-4.61
Imran Farhat (Pak)	45	31	31.85	27.25	-4.60
GS Camacho (WI)	12	9	30.33	25.75	-4.58
B Wood (Eng)	10	11	21.61	17.50	-4.11
EJM Cowan (Aus)	18	11	33.20	29.11	-4.09
RB Simpson (Aus)	52	18	55.51	52.00	-3.51
JB Hobbs (Eng)	70	27	56.37	52.98	-3.39
Imrul Kayes (Ban)	12	20	17.15	13.91	-3.24
SM Katich (Aus)	42	19	50.48	47.46	-3.02
IR Redpath (Aus)	40	19	44.50	41.57	-2.93

Both batsman make this list, with Alviro Petersen again clear at the top. Interesting to note that three of the batsmen regarded as some of the greatest openers ever (Herb Sutcliffe, Jack Hobbs and Bobby Simpson) on the list.

The final batsman that I want to look at is Ross Taylor. He was near the bottom of the list last time I did this analysis, with an average of 40.21 and then 40.38 once he got to 20 (a difference of 0.17). In the past 3 years he has improved both numbers. This time he has averaged 41.79 and then 47.73 once he gets to 20 (a more respectable difference of 5.94). Perhaps he actually is the player who will disprove Martin Crowe's infamous assertion that Polynesian players didn't have the concentration required for cricket.

A Statistician's Look at New Zealand Cricket

I’m really a statistics writer. I’m not the first call for any pieces about management styles, off the field behaviour and so on. When I write about cricket I generally write about what happens on the park, and particularly about the results, and what can be found from analysis. However the current situation in New Zealand Cricket is one that is fascinating to me. The current “crisis” seems to be one that has been misunderstood, misreported, over-estimated and entirely avoidable. So I thought I’d take a statistical enquiry type approach to the current situation, and see what came of it.

The statistical enquiry cycle has 5 parts: Problem, Plan, Data, Analysis and Conclusion.

Problem: Why is there an environment in NZC where a breakdown between captain and coach can have catastrophic consequences and be played out in the public domain as appallingly as this one has.

Plan: Look back over the last 6 years of New Zealand Cricket’s history and see if there is a pattern, and anything that might be the reason:

Data: In a statistical enquiry this is where I gather the numbers. Obviously that’s not so relevant in this situation. So instead I went through just over 4000 articles in three different news archives that related to New Zealand Cricket. Here is a time-line of some of the significant events in New Zealand Cricket over the last 6 years. I’ve broken it up into Governance, Management, Leadership and Players; but some of the issues related to more than one category, so they could have fit across more than one. In these situations I picked what I felt was the most appropriate.

Date	Governance	Management	Leadership	Players
Jan-2006				Cairns retires
June-2006		Snedden announces 5 year test plan. Incuded 2 tests in 18 months.
July-2006			Andy Moles appointed as ND coach
Sept-2006	Don Neely replaces John Reid as president of NZC
Dec-2006		Snedden steps down	Dayle Hadlee appointed bowling coach
Jan-2007				Astle retires
Apr-2007				Fleming retires as ODI captain
June-2007		Justin Vaughan appointed new CEO. Forms committee to look at Bracewell’s position as coach. Includes Ric Charlesworth	Wright turns down Australian academy, expresses interest in working with NZ cricket.
July-2007			Bracewell re-appointed for 2 more years. Mark O’Neill new bating coach. Wright to have a (largely unspecified) role. Bracewell loses veto over selectors
Aug-2007	Heath Mills expresses concern about the newly mooted ICL. Asks NZC to talk with ICC about it.		Nash, Turner, Hadlee and Bracewell all re-appointed as selectors. Haslee and Nash given 1 year contracts, Turner and Bracewell 2 year contracts	Bracewell drops Fleming from t20’s. appoints Vettori captain
Sept-2007				Vettori given test captaincy. Fleming says he will stay on.
				Cairns, Harris, Astle and H Marshall all sign for ICL
Oct-2007			Ric Charlesworth quits as high performance manager	Craig McMillan retires
				B McCullum made vice captain
Nov-2007			Wright appointed high performance manager	Andre Adams makes himself unavailable for ODIs
Dec-2007		Richard Hadlee initially left off guest list for Chappell-Hadlee fixture.
Jan-2008				Bond signs with ICL
Feb-2008		Vaughan allows Auckland to play James Anderson, despite opposition from other asociations.		Fleming retires
				Ryder incident in bar
				Lou Vincent & Adam Parore join ICL
May-2008			Bracewell announces he will quit April 2009	Andre Adams becomes a Kolpak player
June-2008		Major changes in the organisation at NZC. 11 positions removed and 20 created. John Wright and Lindsay Crocker’s jobs both disestablished
July-2008			Dermot Reeve appointed coach of CD
Aug-2008		A number of staff leave NZC – Alec Astle, Dayle Hadlee, Dayle Shackel, Warren Frost, Brian Aldridge	Bob Carter appointed Canterbury coach
Sept-2008	Alan Isaac replaces Sir John Anderson as chairman of NZC board after Anderson retires.
Nov-2008		Geoff Allott appointed general manager of cricket.	Andy Moles appointed coach
		NZC apologises to West Indies for “it’s all white here” slogan
Dec-2008			Mark Greatbatch appointed as advisor to national selection panel
Jan-2009			Heath Mills criticizes selectors for not communicating with players when they are dropped.
Feb-2009			Dave Currie appointed manager
			Mark O’Donnell appointed assistant coach
Apr-2009			Moles asks to become a selector.
June-2009		State Insurance pull out as sponsor		Bond becomes available after ending ties with ICL
Aug-2009			Moles and Vettori added to selection panel, replacing Nash
Oct-2009		First Class competition moves to home and away format.	22 – reports players unhappy with Moles	McCullum loses vice captaincy
			23- Vettori gives some support to Moles
			24- Moles quits.
Nov-2009		Name of first class comp returns to Plunket Shield	John Wright to assist Vettori with national team
Jan-2010			Greatbatch appointed coach	Taylor named “stand-by captain”
Feb-2010		NZC announce partnership with USACA. Schedule matches in Florida	Martin Crowe appointed “batting advisor”
Mar-2010	NZC agrees to nominate John Howard, rather than original pick, Sir John Anderson as new ICC president.	NZ pull out of Zimbabwe series
May-2010			Roger Mortimer joins as performance director.
June-2010	John Howard rejected as ICC president			McCullum gives up keeping in tests.
Aug-2010	Alan Isaac appointed as ICC vice-president. Chris Moller takes over as NZC chairman		Shane Bond assistant coach at CD
			Trent Woodhill appointed as assistant coach
Oct-2010	Robbie Hart appointed to board
	Board calls for sweeping review post Bangladesh clean-sweep
Nov-2010		Geoff Allott resigns.	Duncan Fletcher comes in temporarily as consultant
Dec-2010	Bond, Martin Crowe and Gerard Gillespie bought into cricket committee.	Another deal with USACA	John Wright replaces Mark Greatbatch as coach. Vettori loses selector role.
Jan-2011			Alan Donald joins as bowling coach
Mar-2011				Vettori retires from T20i
Apr-2011	Crowe quits cricket comittee		Buchanan appointed director of cricket.
June-2011			Donald quits as bowling coach	Players consulted on the leadership qualities of Taylor and McCullum
			National selection managers role introduced, given to Greatbatch temporarily	Taylor appointed as captain, after rigorous process
			Trent Woodhill reappointed	Vettori quits ODIs
July-2011			Hesson appointed Kenyan coach
			Damian Wright appointed bowling coach
			Mike Sandle appointed manager
Sept-2011		Vaughan steps down as CEO	Kim Littlejohn appointed national selection manager
Dec-2011		David White appointed CEO
Mar-2012				Ryder & Bracewell dropped for breaking protocol
				Ryder takes indefinite break from cricket
Apr-2012		NZC signs 8 year media deal		ICC rule Wagner eligible for NZ
May-2012		Therese Walsh comes onboard to run NZC’s part of the 2015 World Cup	John Wright turns down a new contract with NZC
July-2012			Mike Hesson named as new coach	Williamson named interim captain while Taylor injured and McCullum rested
				Ryder makes himself eligible for Wellington
Aug-2012			Bob Carter appointed as assistant coach
			Damian Wright steps down as bowling coach
Sept-2012	Review of the board completed. 39 recommendations were made, and published.	Friday night TV deal announced.
Nov-2012	Stephen Boock named NZC president, Greg Barclay appointed as director		Turner and Crowe appointed talent scouts	Hesson approaches Taylor with Sandle and Carter, tells him that he is going to recommend a leadership change to the board after the tour.
Dec-2012	Chris Moller announces a special general meeting to look at a new constitution for New Zealand cricket.			McCullum appointed captain. Taylor rejects offer of split captaincy, steps down from South Africa tour.

Analysis: This is where I normally do some calculations, arrange the data into a nice table, and perhaps draw a graph. None of those things work here, so instead I’ve looked at some of the trends in the stories.

The one constant in New Zealand cricket over the past 6 years has been change. During that time the team has had 5 coaches, at least 11 selectors and at least 16 assistant or specialist coaches. There has been a litany of job titles for people too. General manager of cricket, chairman of selectors, convenor of selectors, national selection manager, high performance manager, performance director, director of cricket selection advisor, batting advisor etc. There have also been 6 captains for the international team (although Kane Williamson was only as an injury replacement and Jamie How was only for a tour match)

There have been a number of quite significant changes in the power balance between the captain and the coach. First there was a confrontation between Bracewell and Fleming. Then Moles and Vettori. Then Hesson and Taylor. The role of the captain has changed a number of times. Vettori was a selector, and for a while was actually the coach as well (although that was only for about 2 weeks while the team was between coaches). However this is not an issue that is limited to New Zealand cricket. There were similar issues in Australia between Warne and Buchanan and most spectacularly in England between Pietersen, Flintoff and a range of coaches.

An interesting story came out in 2009 where Richard Hadlee felt that Fleming had downgraded the role of coach in New Zealand. That balance in power has certainly been an issue.

Likewise there was an issue with player power in Central Districts while Dermot Reeve was coach, and almost one in Auckland not long after Paul Strang took over. In that situation Auckland Cricket acted quickly, brought in someone extra to help sort out the communication and define the roles between the senior players and the coach.

Conclusion: This is not the first time that there has been a power issue between coach and captain in New Zealand Cricket, or in international cricket in general. It is something that has been bubbling under the surface for a while. New Zealand Cricket probably need to do what Auckland did: bring in someone who is respected by both the coaches and the players, get them to work with both groups to define clearly the roles and expectations of the coach and captain. And then stick with it.

There have been so many changes in New Zealand Cricket over the past 6 years, that consistency is probably better than making more changes. However the roles need to be more clearly defined, and there needs to be a third person introduced to make sure that the two are working together correctly. That person may be the manager, or the director of cricket or someone else, but whoever it is needs to get involved before this happens a fourth time.

Mini-Session Analysis, Second Test, Ind NZ, Bangalore, 2012

Here is the mini-session analysis for the second test between India and New Zealand at M Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bangalore, India.

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 45/1 off 15	New Zealand
1-1b	New Zealand 63/2 off 14	draw
1-2a	New Zealand 88/1 off 13.2	New Zealand
1-2b	New Zealand 44/1 off 16.4	India
1-3a	New Zealand 64/1 off 16	New Zealand
1-3b	New Zealand 24/0 off 6.3	New Zealand
2-1a	New Zealand 33/4 off 8.4	India
2-1b	India 63/2 off 21	New Zealand
2-2a	India 61/2 off 12	draw
2-2b	India 44/0 off 14	India
2-3a	India 57/1 off 11	India
2-3b	India 58/0 off 20	India
3-1a	India 52/4 off 13	New Zealand
3-1b	India 18/1 off 5.5	New Zealand
	New Zealand 29/0 off 5
3-2a	New Zealand 40/3 off 13	India
3-2b	New Zealand 67/1 off 17	New Zealand
3-3a	New Zealand 45/1 off 14	New Zealand
3-3b	New Zealand 64/4 off 20	India
4-1a	New Zealand 16/1 off 4.2	India
	India 67/0 off 11
4-1b	India 21/2 off 9	New Zealand
4-2a	India 59/0 off 12.5	India
4-3a	India 27/3 off 12.1	New Zealand
4-3b	India 39/0 off 11	India
4-3c	India 49/0 off 7.2	India

Latest update here. India win the match, after the mini-session count is tied 11-11

Tea, Day 1: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 2-1

An absorbing day of cricket. Punch and counter punch; featuring one of the best captain's innings you are likely to see. Taylor came out in the media before the match and said that New Zealand's batsmen needed to be more positive, and attack the bowling. He then went out and demonstrated what he meant.

He came in after the umpires again decided that the benefit of the doubt should go to the home side twice. The ball may have just clipped the off stump for McCullum's lbw, and may have flicked the bails for Williamson, but both of them were at best tight decisions, and have continued the trend of close calls going the way of India in this series.

Taylor could have responded to the team being under pressure by shutting up shop. He could have tried to get his eye in. Instead he started to swing the bat. His 18 boundaries have covered almost all the points of the clock, with only 12 o'clock and 5 o'clock missing out so far.

Taylor needs 11 more runs to become the fastest New Zealand batsman to score 3000 runs in terms of matches (one behind Martin Crowe in terms of innings). New Zealand have to a chance to get over 300, and allow their bowlers something to bowl at.

Final drinks, Day 1: New Zealand leads the mini-session count 3-1

The third hour that New Zealand have scored at more than a run a minute. To be over 300 before the end of the day would be something that the New Zealand team could hardly have dreamed of after the debacle at Hyderabad.

The Indian bowing has been exactly what the modern game tends to provide. Defensive bowling to attacking fields or attacking bowling to defensive fields. There had been a bit too much leg-side filth, trying to bore the batsmen out for my liking, but to be fair it seems to have worked against Guptill and Taylor.

The new ball will be interesting. I'd expect the spinners will get a bowl with it, rather than the quicks, but the extra bounce might be quite dangerous.

Stumps, Day 1: New Zealand leads the mini-session count 4-1

It's New Zealand's day here. 3 players in particular really took it to the Indians, first Guptill, then Taylor and finally van Wyk. Ojha was the lone bright light for India. He looks like he is the sort of bowler who is good against quality batsmen, similar to Trent Boult for New Zealand. Often the rule is that you take the ball away from the batsmen, but bring it into the bowlers. Ashwin started to look more dangerous once Taylor was out. While he didn't manage to get Bracewell out, he did manage to make him look troubled a couple of times.

It's a truism that the next morning is going to be vital. However If New Zealand manage to bat through the first 4 or 5 overs without losing a wicket, they could potentially go on to score 400, and really make the Indian team work in the second innings. There is not likely to be a complete reversal of Hyderabad, but it's amazing what scoreboard pressure does to players.

Inning change over, Day 2: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 4-2

A combination of good bowling, poor shots and some really bad luck saw New Zealand only add 33 runs for the loss of 4 wickets at the start of the day. India are certainly back in this game, but New Zealand still have the runs on the board, as the cliche goes.

The Indian response will be interesting.

Lunch, Day 2: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 5-2

Another session, another tough decision against New Zealand. Sehwag looked to be out off the first ball from the second over. There may have been some doubt on height, but after seven decisions that had more doubt than that being given out in the last three innings, it was surprising to see the umpires finally giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

The bad news for New Zealand is that Sehwag is not one to often squander a start against them. He has 7 centuries against New Zealand in international cricket. Once he is in he is a difficult man to stop. At the other end is Tendulkar. While he is hardly looking in vintage form, (4 off 41, no runs off his last 26 balls) the longer he bats, the closer he is to recovering his touch.

New Zealand need at least two more wickets before the clouds burn off. As the pitch is wearing quickly, they can't afford to give India a first innings lead.

Final drinks, Day 2: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 5-4

On the first day we saw a fantastic counter-attack from Taylor, assisted by Flynn and van Wyk. Today it was Kohli, assisted by Raina and Dhoni. The game is quite even going into the last hour. We really have an absorbing test match on our hands here.

Stumps, Day 2: The mini-session count is tied 5-5

The game is now probably slightly in India's favour. New Zealand can not afford to allow India a lead, as the New Zealand lineup is not as suited to playing on a wearing pitch.

It's been a great partnership from Kohli and Dhoni, but batting will be more difficult in the morning with (probably) some cloud cover and a new ball. Again the first hour will be really important.

Tea, Day 3: New Zealand leads the mini-session count 8-6

This game is still very evenly poised. Both teams are yet to really grab the game by the scruff of the neck. New Zealand are probably still 150 runs from a score that's likely to win, but even chasing 200 will be difficult on this pitch for India.

The star of the day has been Tim Southee. His 7/64 is one of the best ever returns for a New Zealand bowler. He really took the spotlight off Virat Kohli's fantastic hundred. Kohli has scored 450 runs in his last 5 tests, at an average over 50.

Stumps, Day 3: New Zealand leads the mini-session count 9-7

R Ashwin has managed to get India back into the game. The second one side looks like they are winning, the other one strikes back. This is test match cricket at its' most absorbing.

Going into day 4, there is almost certainly going to be a result (unless there is some terrible weather or a phenomenal rear guard effort by Patel and Boult tomorrow.) We may even have the exciting prospect of a day 5 with a very small number of runs needed, and only a couple of wickets in hand.

First drinks, Day 4: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 9-8

A very aggressive start from India, after another horrible decision to end New Zealand's innings.

Sehwag and Gambhir have looked like they are playing an ODI match. If they keep this up, the game will escape New Zealand very quickly.

Lunch, Day 4: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 10-8

The roller-coaster lurches again. This test is starting to feel like the Hobart one. Tendulkar looks all at sea against Boult, but if anyone can battle through a bad patch, it's him. There is still a lot of work for New Zealand to do, but the momentum is back with them at the moment.

Rain break, post lunch, Day 4: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 10-9

India have taken hold of this match. It will take either some very poor cricket from India, some very good cricket from New Zealand or a combination of both for India to lose this now.

Brendon McCullum's missed stumping may prove to be very costly.


Final drinks, Day 4: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 11-10

It looked like India's game at lunch. Then an hour later it was New Zealand's. Now Dhoni and Kohli have taken back control. Is there another twist?

End of match: The mini-session count was tied 11-11

India won the match, mostly due to the batting of Virat Kohli. The rest of the teams cancelled each other out, but he shone above everyone else. When Dravid described him as India's best batsman in all three formats, he was not exaggerating to make a point. Kohli has turned potential into delivery. There is a long time to go, but at the moment he is truly a wonderful batsman.

Preview NZ SA 1st Test Dunedin 11/12

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

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

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

Things to look for:

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

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

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

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

ODI team of the year

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

Here is my attempt at ODI team of the year:

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

Openers:

Sehwag & Watson

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

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

Top Order

de Villiers, Clark & Taylor

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

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

Lower/Middle order

Dhoni & Duminy

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

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

Bowlers.

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

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

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

The final team:

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

12th man O'Brien

How does your team look?

A quite remarkable innings

Kane Williamson was somewhat overshadowed again in hitting his second ODI hundred.

His first came in a loss against Bangladesh. He was the last wicket to fall, caught at deep midwicket, with New Zealand needing 9 runs of the last 4 balls. His strike rate was a fairly disappointing 81.81

His second was in the same innings as Ross Taylor scored 119, and it was done without much big hitting or fanfare. Which really made it more remarkable.

His chances of a hundred looked dead and buried when Taylor got out, and Nathan McCullum was in strike in the last over. Williamson needed seven to get to his hundred, and there was only one ball left. But Ncube obliged, bowled a beamer, which Williamson hit for 4, and then (after a change of bowler due to repeated beamers) Williamson manages to run 3 on a push to mid on, requiring a dive to make his ground.

His innings was the second fastest century by a New Zealander (off 69 balls) and the second fastest by anyone to not have a majority of runs scored in boundaries (after MoYo's 68 ball 100 against Zimbabwe in 2002). This was the thing that really impressed.

He scored 11 4's and 1 6, meaning that he got 50 runs in boundaries, and ran 50. His activity rate (runs per ball removing boundaries) for the innings was 0.877 - quite remarkable really. It was a triumph for placement, timing and running between wickets, rather than the less effective brutality coming from the other end.

And yet very few people will remember it, for 2 reasons. 1. It was against Zimbabwe. And they are rubbish. 2. It was in a losing cause, in a dead rubber. But regardless, it was a beautiful innings, that perhaps is a sign of things to come from a prodigious young batsman.

3 reasons why New Zealand fans should and should not get excited

Last nights game in Pallekele had a very convincing result. However it's not so clear that the performance was quite as convincing. There are my three reasons that we shouldn't get excited, and the three reasons that we should.

Reasons not to get too excited.

1. Ross Taylor got dropped twice early on.

If Pakistan didn't have Kamran Akmal behind the stumps the outcome of this game could have been vastly different. What are the chances of let-offs like this occurring in the semi-final? Much less than in a meaningless game where both teams have all but qualified for the next round.

2. We were playing Pakistan.

As I pointed out in my previous post Matching Mercury Pakistan and New Zealand have a tradition of beating up on each other. Both teams are as stable as the Italian Parliament and collapse to crushing defeats quite regularly. As a result a 100 run win really means not much more than a 100 run loss.

3. Vettori got injured.

The loss of Vettori is a more serious blow to New Zealand's chances than any boost in confidence that the team got by thrashing Pakistan.

Reasons to be excited:

1. Ross Taylor got dropped twice early on.

Taylor is the sort of player that can really capitalise on getting his eye in. In a way he's similar to Matthew Hayden. In the lead up to the last world cup there were calls to drop Hayden from the Australian side. The final warm up game agains New Zealand was possibly his last chance. He looked scratchy, was dropped early, and took 82 balls to get to 50. (similar to the number that Taylor took last night). However he started finding the middle of the bat, and went on to dominate all that came before him over the next 12 matches (the 2007 World Cup) scoring 840 runs at 93.33 and a strike rate of over 100. Could this be the start of a run like that for Taylor?

2. It was Pakistan.

This was not a thrashing of a minor team, or a team on the rocks. Pakistan are a powerful test side, who were riding high after beating Sri Lanka. New Zealand have lost their last 6 games to Pakistan, including 2 semifinals. And they have beaten a sub-continent team, in the sub-continent.

3. Vettori got injured

New Zealand managed to win this game convincingly without their no 1 star. The managed to beat a good team, on a sub-continent wicket, without relying on 10 overs from Vettori. Without Vettori's captaincy. Without him even facing a ball. If they are this good without Vettori, how good could they be with him.